NationStates Jolt Archive

So I heard a fellow christian the other day, although I guess you really don't have to be christian to have an opinion, tell me see would be saved by Faith alone, which I thought was bull... I wanted to know if anyone else had an opinion similiar to this, or if anyone even cared about religion anymore...

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

ya but it fills up the pews when you tell people all they have to do is accept jesus christ as your personal lord and savior and you get a free ride to heaven

That wasn't James' point to say you can work your way to heaven.

His point was that saving faith produces works.

So we're saved by faith alone, and a saving faith is not alone.

modern religion bastardizes the ideals and messages of true prophets and institutionalizes control mechanisms that make it harder for people to become happier or more spiritually aware in their own lives.

Define "work"

If God expects me to believe Christian/Muslim/Whatever Fundamentalists before He'll let me into Heaven, I'll just have to stay down where the brimstone is.

Works can mean alot, fellowship, love, ect... It just means things like, well in James, chapter 2 verse 15-26, it gives a good example,
If a brother or asister be naked, and destitute of daily bfood,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye agive• them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so afaith•, if it hath not bworks, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my afaith by my bworks•.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the adevils• also bbelieve•, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that afaith without bworks• is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father ajustified• by works, when he had boffered• Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by aworks was faith made bperfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham abelieved• God, and it was imputed unto him for brighteousness: and he was called the cFriend• of God.

24 Ye see then how that by aworks• a man is bjustified, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise also was not aRahab• the harlot bjustified• by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the aspirit is bdead, so faith without cworks is dead also.

I don't believe in an afterlife, but the idea of admitting people based on religious faith implies an idiot God. It's just as good as letting in all people based on nationality or language into Heaven. A true God, if there is one, would judge people on how they lived their lives.

A viruous Pagan is infinitately worth more than a bigoted and evil Christian.

Now, religion could play a factor, but if it's the only factor then I vote No Confidance in my Divine Leadership.

I believe that people are based on their own beliefs, if you are a muslim, you will be judged on your own beliefs, a pagan likewise, and so on and so on, some things are just inherent, you know that they are right or wrong, like rape, rape bad, working on sunday, up for personnal interpretation...

In Judaism you're judged based on your deeds, not your belief system. I believe this standard to be far more logical (and ethical). In my opinion, you can't say if someone's good or bad simply because they believe something- it's your ACTIONS that count.

John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.


But, you prove your work with faith. Faith saves you, works show you have faith. But again, it's the faith that does the saving.

I think we should all just go back in time and punch Martin Luther in the genitals for starting this debate.

So I heard a fellow christian the other day, although I guess you really don't have to be christian to have an opinion, tell me see would be saved by Faith alone, which I thought was bull... I wanted to know if anyone else had an opinion similiar to this, or if anyone even cared about religion anymore...

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

It's both. You must love each other as you love yourself; how can you love anyone but yourself if you refuse to help others?

There are those who say it is merely faith; that choosing Christ as their Savior is enough -- it's the key. It lets you unlock the gate. What you need to keep on the path is to be good to others -- it's Jesus' whole message, for pity's sake.

I think we should all just go back in time and punch Martin Luther in the genitals for starting this debate.


Do try to contribute something worthwhile, rather than religious bigotry, won't you?

Well, it seems to me that, if one truly holds the principles of one's faith and honestly attempts to live one's life by them, then works will flow naturally from that. Personally, I find that my faith requires both inner spiritual searching as well as outward effort to fully realize any benefit. My faith strongly dictates to me that violence and killing is wrong, so I am compelled to volunteer my time with pacifism organizations and prison reform organizations. My faith also greatly believes in equality of individuals, so I volunteer with organizations promoting gender, racial and sexual equality and their issues.

While I try very hard not to judge the religious beliefs of others, I will admit when someone claims a faith but does no real world work towards that other than prosthelyzation, I question exactly how strongly they can believe in that faith. At least, how strongly this belief actually affects their lives. At best, they're mystics, hopelessly removed from society. At worst, they're hypcrites or just plain lazy.

I think we should all just go back in time and punch Martin Luther in the genitals for starting this debate.

Do try to contribute something worthwhile, rather than religious bigotry, won't you?

Actually, Mornendar's comment was quite funny. Martin Luther wrestled with the problem Paul created. Is it good enough to say that you're sorry, and be forgiven? Luther once said, "if you're going to sin, sin boldly". The Catholic faith says that by confessing sin, and receiving absolution, you are free of guilt (for the sin committed). Protestants carry the guilt around with them til judgement day.

James had some serious issues with Paul's preaching. Paul was in league with the Herods, and accomodating to the Roman occupiers. It's possible that James (Jesus brother), and the Jerusalem "poor", "people of the way", put a contract out on Paul (Sicarii). James' works mean to never give up, never give in, never yield in your faith and religious traditions. Pretty unworkable over time and cultures. Christianity has become a religion of accomodation. Luther saw this, just as James did.

If you only do good deeds simply just to get into heaven, than you probably wont get there.

Dangit, I meant to click faith and got works instead.

If it were works alone then we'd all be screwed. It is easy to believe that it is faith AND works, but that is erroneous.

If one is true in faith then the light of the lord will shine before men so they may see your good works and glorify our Father who is in Heaven.

In other words, if you have faith then your works will reflect that, but not the other way around.

The Lord knows that everyone will slip, nobody is perfect except him, so he made atonement for you. He let you off the hook for sin, but not for faith. He expects you to develop and grow your faith, which is why it is often called a 'Faith Journey' and why he accepts and rejoyces for the prodigal son, even though the prodigal son's works were often questionable.

If one is to believe the view of God and Christianity presented by the fundamentalists, then Hell is a lake of fire, and Heaven is filled with cowering, insipid lackeys, so we're screwed either way. I think I'll go with the good works, and risk the lake of fire, rather than spend eternity in the company of Jack Chick.

Abstract concepts go nowhere. We can all see God in concrete reality. I see Him in everything.

If I keep myself boxed in one mode of thought, I don't think I'll ever advance. There is a lot to learn that will take me an eternity to comprehend. As long as I think something is impossible, I will never move on to more advanced thought processes. I take what I have learned at a personal level. I am not going to stay with you on only one way "everyone you know" thinks. I am going to move on.

From the words of Christ my Lord and Savior.
Matthew 17:20
"Because of your unbelief; for assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith as a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain,"Move from here to there," and it will move; and nothing will be impossible for you.

Matthew 19:26
"With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

John 15:5
"I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing."

From these verses it is clear what he means by nothing. No advancement from man's level of understanding. We are not Angels. We were meant to be immortal but we have all fallen and were seperated from God. We can only become immortal and comprehend eternity with Christ in our hearts.

Faith to move mountains has not happened to me yet. Believing has to be before and after the miracle. You can't just say to a mountain "Move from here to there" and when it does move say, "Wow! I can't believe that mountain moved at my command!" No you say it, because you know it is going to happen. When it moves, you continue on down your path as if something everyday has happened. Your belief in God's plan for your life is so powerful that anything is possible for you. Whatever the Holy Spirit tells you to do you do it, because you know that reality is something more than what man can comprehend and the war that is going on for the souls of men.

I believe the parable of the prodigal son is about the relationship between God, angels, and men.

Wait .... saved from what? Hungry bears? Nazis? Cheek pinching grannies?

So I heard a fellow christian the other day, although I guess you really don't have to be christian to have an opinion, tell me see would be saved by Faith alone, which I thought was bull... I wanted to know if anyone else had an opinion similiar to this, or if anyone even cared about religion anymore...

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Works are PROOF of faith, therefore anyone who says he or she has faith, but doesn't have works is wrong (that doesn't mean that anyone knows about their works, just that they have them)

ya but it fills up the pews when you tell people all they have to do is accept jesus christ as your personal lord and savior and you get a free ride to heaven

The job of the church isn't to fill up pews, it's to preach the gospel. If that offends people, or makes them less likely to go, then so be it.

A viruous [sic] Pagan is infinitately worth more than a bigoted and evil Christian.

Virtuous? By whose standards, yours or (if one exists) God's?

In Judaism you're judged based on your deeds, not your belief system. I believe this standard to be far more logical (and ethical). In my opinion, you can't say if someone's good or bad simply because they believe something- it's your ACTIONS that count.

However, your actions are based on your beliefs. So unless your beliefs are correct, then your actions are (at least part of the time) going to be off as well.

The Catholic faith says that by confessing sin, and receiving absolution, you are free of guilt (for the sin committed). Protestants carry the guilt around with them til judgement day.

I'm glad you pointed out that I "carry the guilt around with them til judgement day", because, as a Protestant, I never realized this until you were so gracious as to point this out. I always thought I believed I was saved and my sins were forgiven, but evidently I was wrong. As far as I learned, absolution is enough, but it does require true repentence. Thus, simply mouthing, whether once or an infinite number of times, the words "I'm sorry" without a change of heart is not enough.

James had some serious issues with Paul's preaching. Paul was in league with the Herods, and accomodating to the Roman occupiers. It's possible that James (Jesus brother), and the Jerusalem "poor", "people of the way", put a contract out on Paul (Sicarii).

Sources?
As for Paul being an accomodationist, it seems he was no more so than Jesus or many of the prophets of ancient Israel (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/musly1.html#noking).

Wait .... saved from what? Hungry bears? Nazis? Cheek pinching grannies?

The wages of sin, which is (eternal) death.

So I heard a fellow christian the other day, although I guess you really don't have to be christian to have an opinion, tell me see would be saved by Faith alone, which I thought was bull... I wanted to know if anyone else had an opinion similiar to this, or if anyone even cared about religion anymore...

James 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Faith without works is dead. It is entirely one thing to say you are a Christian, but if you do not live a Christian life than you are only fooling yourself.

BTW, you do not need to go to church to be a good Christian. Many people go to church and sing the praises of the Lord and the moment they leave the church, they morph into anything but a Christian. I am sure God would not be amused.

BTW, there is at least one person on here that claims to be an atheist yet has more God sense then a lot of other self righteous religious zealots!! :rolleyes:

In Judaism you're judged based on your deeds, not your belief system. I believe this standard to be far more logical (and ethical). In my opinion, you can't say if someone's good or bad simply because they believe something- it's your ACTIONS that count.

then why is the faith of various figures discussed (abraham, specifically)

honest debate question, not a challenge.

then why is the faith of various figures discussed (abraham, specifically)

honest debate question, not a challenge.

I'm happy to discuss this- could you expand on what you mean, though? Give examples, etc? Just so I get a better idea of what you're talking about.

BTW, there is at least one person on here that claims to be an atheist yet has more God sense then a lot of other self righteous religious zealots!! :rolleyes:

Don't be coy, Canuck. Name Names!

I'm happy to discuss this- could you expand on what you mean, though? Give examples, etc? Just so I get a better idea of what you're talking about.

why do jewish texts mention faith? note: forgve me, i only have the selections used in the old testament of the bible... don't hate me. i just haven't any other access. mine is blueletterbible.org. i also understand that the use of faith may be an insertion by non-jewish writers.

start with

Pro 28:20 A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.

then to specific examples where a man's faith is mentioned.

1Sa 22:14 Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who [is so] faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?

Neh 7:2 That I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he [was] a faithful man, and feared God above many.

Neh 13:13 And I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah: and next to them [was] Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah: for they were counted faithful, and their office [was] to distribute unto their brethren.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.


although i know that noah and abraham are described as faithful... i think. maybe it is righteous and i'm screwing it all up.

One can be judged only by one's works, but neither salvation nor damnation lies in that judgement. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is erroneous.

why do jewish texts mention faith?

Pro 28:20
1Sa 22:14
Neh 7:2
Neh 13:13
Isa 8:2


If nobody minds, I'll field this one.

First, none of the above quotes come from Torah and, hence, are not part of the Law.

Yes, Jews have faith, but not in the Christian sense. We have faith more like in the Islamic sense that Prophets cannot lie. Jews have faith that when, say, Isaiah(pbuh) speaks that every word is true and not designed to cause us harm. (Though I'd like confirmation from a Muslim on this one)

I guess the best way I can think to describe it is that Jews don't need faith because they *know* beyond any shadow of a doubt that God exists. What Jews have is the Law of God on how to live a righteous life. Hence, in Judaism, it is by how you live your life that keeps away the hungry bears.

One can be judged by only by one's works, but neither salvation nor damnation lies in that judgement. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is erroneous.

Er, what exactly do you mean by "faith is erroneous"? It is perhaps unjustified, but erroneous seems to be a bit of an overstatement. As you said, faith functions in a different realm from logical proof or material evidence, so how can it be then judged by them?

or if anyone even cared about religion anymore...
Man, you should have made that a poll option. Bet it'd be winning :D

I don't really believe in faith or salvation, although I do believe that works are required to have a good life here.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in the hope and glory of God.
Romans 5:1-2
WWJD
Amen.

WWJD

World Wide Jewish Domination! w00t!!

World Wide Jewish Domination! w00t!!
I would agree with that, after all, my boss is a Jewish carpenter.
WWJD
Amen.

WWJDWhy whine, just die.

why do jewish texts mention faith? note: forgve me, i only have the selections used in the old testament of the bible... don't hate me. i just haven't any other access. mine is blueletterbible.org. i also understand that the use of faith may be an insertion by non-jewish writers.

start with

Pro 28:20 A faithful man shall abound with blessings: but he that maketh haste to be rich shall not be innocent.

then to specific examples where a man's faith is mentioned.

1Sa 22:14 Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who [is so] faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house?

Neh 7:2 That I gave my brother Hanani, and Hananiah the ruler of the palace, charge over Jerusalem: for he [was] a faithful man, and feared God above many.

Neh 13:13 And I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah: and next to them [was] Hanan the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah: for they were counted faithful, and their office [was] to distribute unto their brethren.

Isa 8:2 And I took unto me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.


although i know that noah and abraham are described as faithful... i think. maybe it is righteous and i'm screwing it all up.


Well, first, I'd recommend you to an online copy of the JPS Tanakh (I know some folks, including Keruvalia, I think, aren't fond of this translation, but I feel a flawed Jewish source is better than nothing):

http://www.hareidi.org/bible/bible.htm

As far as your questions- just to build off of Keruvalia's response:

First, the context is important. "Faith" is inherently a somewhat tricky word because it can be used with different meanings. Having "faith" something will happen, or being a "faithful servant" is not really the same thing as "faith", the belief system.

Second, the distinction I would use is this: while faith can be good and important, the emphasis is ALWAYS on action in Judaism. One DEMONSTRATES one faith through religious action. Holy people in Judaism are generally not described as "faithful" but rather "pious" or "religious", or "observant [of the laws]".

So, it's not that faith (or "belief") is necessarily UNIMPORTANT, but it's not what people are judged by.

Er, what exactly do you mean by "faith is erroneous"? It is perhaps unjustified, but erroneous seems to be a bit of an overstatement. As you said, faith functions in a different realm from logical proof or material evidence, so how can it be then judged by them?

It was meant in part to be a response to Bozzy's post earlier on the same page, in which he or she asserts that claiming salvation or judgement is based both on faith and works is erroneous, and that only faith is relevant. Sorry if you think what I said was overkill, but it seemed the best way to state it. Actually, it still does.

Erroneous means mistaken, which is what any and all beliefs not based on logical proof or material evidence are. Hmm, that sounded a little harsh.
Clarification: The beliefs themselves may not be wholey untrue or mistaken, and I admit this because I cannot prove otherwise. But to believe in them is mistaken. It is a mistake to have unquestioning faith in the unprovable and illogical.

note: I never said faith functions in a different realm from logical proof or material evidence. Faith exists in the human realm, as does anything else we can percieve. What I said was that faith is not based on either of these things, which shouldn't and doesn't stop me from judging it on their terms.

If nobody minds, I'll field this one.

First, none of the above quotes come from Torah and, hence, are not part of the Law.

Yes, Jews have faith, but not in the Christian sense. We have faith more like in the Islamic sense that Prophets cannot lie. Jews have faith that when, say, Isaiah(pbuh) speaks that every word is true and not designed to cause us harm. (Though I'd like confirmation from a Muslim on this one)

I guess the best way I can think to describe it is that Jews don't need faith because they *know* beyond any shadow of a doubt that God exists. What Jews have is the Law of God on how to live a righteous life. Hence, in Judaism, it is by how you live your life that keeps away the hungry bears.


i see.

One can be judged only by one's works, but neither salvation nor damnation lies in that judgement. Faith is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Faith is erroneous.

The Word became flesh 2000 years ago. He was seen and witnessed by the 12. If you noticed my other post it was all the words of Jesus. That is who I have faith in. I have faith in words and not chance.

Originally Posted by CanuckHeaven
BTW, there is at least one person on here that claims to be an atheist yet has more God sense then a lot of other self righteous religious zealots!!


Don't be coy, Canuck. Name Names!

Naming names, only draws attention. The important message is that there are atheists on these boards who care more about their fellow human beings than some of these fundalmentalist type Christians, who for whatever reason, appear to be selfish, hateful, vengeful, and although they oppose abortion, they sanctify war and capital punishment. Bringing their names forward resolves nothing, but as they read these words, they know who they are.

I get this mental picture of the heavenly gates being slammed in the faces of these morally bankrupt people come judgement day.

I can also envisage God saying to certain atheists:

You lived your live believing not in me, but your actions on earth have reflected my will. You are welcome into heaven, if you so choose to enter.

Erroneous means mistaken, which is what any and all beliefs not based on logical proof or material evidence are. Hmm, that sounded a little harsh.

Well, yes, but I see where you're going with this and, perhaps, to an extent, I even agree. However, my contention is that if faith (not necessarily belief, because the two are different) is indeed not based on logical proof or material evidence, how can it then be judged by the metric? Of course it would be erroneous under their strictures because it has never tied itself to them.


Clarification: The beliefs themselves may not be wholey untrue or mistaken, and I admit this because I cannot prove otherwise. But to believe in them is mistaken. It is a mistake to have unquestioning faith in the unprovable and illogical.

Well, now you're adding in qualifiers. :)

I completely agree that an unquestioning faith is problematic and I question it's "true" nature. So, to clarify, do you feel that unquestioning faith is the issue or all faith, regardless of whether or not it admits it's own potential "wrongness?"

I think my point is that faith and belief inspires works. When I was athiestic, I put that faith and that belief in the fundamental goodness of my fellow man and that became the justification for why I was an activist, because I believed that my fellow men were worthy of the effort and I had faith in them. Mind you, this was nearly complete faith, because they certainly, on the whole, did very little to factually justify it. However, if I quit believing or having faith in them, then what would be the point of working to try and make this a better world?

Now that I've embraced theism again, I still hold that same faith and belief in my fellow man, but I have an additional source of faith that I feel to be worthy of exploration and an additional understanding of why certain things are important to me and an explanation for certain occurances and intuitions throughout my life. While I can (and frequently do) change parts of this faith from day to day as new information becomes available, I don't see this as making it erroneous. Rather, it's part of an unfolding mystery that may turn out to be complete bunk, but feels more "right" than anything I have previously experiences (at least in the world of religion).


note: I never said faith functions in a different realm from logical proof or material evidence. Faith exists in the human realm, as does anything else we can percieve. What I said was that faith is not based on either of these things, which shouldn't and doesn't stop me from judging it on their terms.

But again, how can you justify that judgement when faith and belief are not based on logic or proof? It's like using the principles of dance to judge a science fair. There may be some superficial coorespondence due to shared terminology, but at the fundamental level, the two can not be compared because they are so inherantly different and their aims are so completely opposite.

Tag...response coming later.

BTW, there is at least one person on here that claims to be an atheist yet has more God sense then a lot of other self righteous religious zealots!! Don't be coy, Canuck. Name Names!Naming names, only draws attention. The important message is that there are atheists on these boards who care more about their fellow human beings than some of these fundalmentalist type Christians, who for whatever reason, appear to be selfish, hateful, vengeful, and although they oppose abortion, they sanctify war and capital punishment. Bringing their names forward resolves nothing, but as they read these words, they know who they are.

"I have in my hand the names of 245 members of the Communist party!"
"Care to list them?"
"I have in my hand the names of 246 members of the Communist party!"

Tag...response coming later.
Don't tag threads. Subscribe to them. There's a nice little drop down list for doing so at the top of the thread. Tags are outdated now and have always been annoying.

"I have in my hand the names of 245 members of the Communist party!"
"Care to list them?"
"I have in my hand the names of 246 members of the Communist party!"

*snicker*

Naming names, only draws attention. The important message is that there are atheists on these boards who care more about their fellow human beings than some of these fundalmentalist type Christians, who for whatever reason, appear to be selfish, hateful, vengeful, and although they oppose abortion, they sanctify war and capital punishment. Bringing their names forward resolves nothing, but as they read these words, they know who they are.

Bah! Damn you and your moral high ground!

Bah! Damn you and your moral high ground!
No moral high ground here. I have experience with the dark side and it sucks. As a result, I am more keenly aware of those that are suffering inside. I see them in these threads, and in RL. I read/hear their words, see their actions and all I can do is pray for them.

Some people have religion but they have no spirituality, and they are dying inside. :(

No moral high ground here. I have experience with the dark side and it sucks. As a result, I am more keenly aware of those that are suffering inside. I see them in these threads, and in RL. I read/hear their words, see their actions and all I can do is pray for them.

Some people have religion but they have no spirituality, and they are dying inside. :(

Man! I'm trying to inject a lighthearted sense of paranoia into an increasingly problematic thread and you keep being serious.

Man! I'm trying to inject a lighthearted sense of paranoia into an increasingly problematic thread and you keep being serious.
You got me smiling now!!! :)

I thought you were cranking up the serious side LOL.

gandhi was a pretty cool guy, he taught non-violence in the face of oppression. he wasn't christian though. he didn't believe in jesus as his saviour. so if you believe that faith is all that matters, he's in hell.
hitler was really quite an ass, he had people killed on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and he was a christian. he believed himself to be doing god's will. and by the same reasoning, he's in heaven.

i really don't think that if there is a mature, fair and just god out their, it would give a rat's ass if people believed in it so long as they played nicely.

What exactly do you people gain from these conversations about religion? If you aren't willing to accept someone elses opinions, what good is yours? Who can say that faith means the same thing to different people? You have these conversations over and over and over, where the athiests and agnostics are just trying to attack and offend the Christians. You want an autographed copy of the Bible? You aren't going to get one. It is called faith because it isn't just going to be handed to you, you have to work for it. You have to believe and be willing to put your trust in something that you can't see. If you can't, allow those who can to do so without your attacks. Just let people have their faith. No one needs someone else's useless attacks. Especially over the internet where you can be as cruel and brainless without your identity being established. These religion threads are foolishness.

What exactly do you people gain from these conversations about religion? If you aren't willing to accept someone elses opinions, what good is yours? Who can say that faith means the same thing to different people? You have these conversations over and over and over, where the athiests and agnostics are just trying to attack and offend the Christians. You want an autographed copy of the Bible? You aren't going to get one. It is called faith because it isn't just going to be handed to you, you have to work for it. You have to believe and be willing to put your trust in something that you can't see. If you can't, allow those who can to do so without your attacks. Just let people have their faith. No one needs someone else's useless attacks. Especially over the internet where you can be as cruel and brainless without your identity being established. These religion threads are foolishness.

So thanks for putting your first post in one.

????????

So thanks for putting your first post in one.

????????
Tooooooooooo funny!!!! :) :)

gandhi was a pretty cool guy, he taught non-violence in the face of oppression. he wasn't christian though. he didn't believe in jesus as his saviour. so if you believe that faith is all that matters, he's in hell.
hitler was really quite an ass, he had people killed on the basis of their race, religion, sexual orientation, and he was a christian. he believed himself to be doing god's will. and by the same reasoning, he's in heaven.

i really don't think that if there is a mature, fair and just god out their, it would give a rat's ass if people believed in it so long as they played nicely.
Hitler was an agnostic and occult enthusiast. He only metioned God in his speeches once and that was in mostly Catholic Poland, to currey favor. Instead, he often metioned that "Providence" would help them through.
As for Ghandi, foir being a pretty cool guy, he did express disgust with British Christians when studying there, saying, "I have enjoyed studying your Jesus, it is a shame more of you don't. Perhaps then, tolerance would be the rule rather than the exception."
I am assuming that he said this before disinheriting his son for daring to convert to Islam.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

WWJD
Amen.

salvation is relative

For it is by God's grace that you have been saved through faith. It is not the result of your own efforts, but God's gift, so that no one can boast about it.
-Ephesians 2:8

Well, now you're adding in qualifiers. :)

Only because I'm willing to admit that I don't know everything.

I completely agree that an unquestioning faith is problematic and I question it's "true" nature. So, to clarify, do you feel that unquestioning faith is the issue or all faith, regardless of whether or not it admits it's own potential "wrongness?"

Good question, not sure.

At this point, I'm going to assume that faith refers to a set of principles or beliefs rather than a confident and secure belief in the theology of choice. Given that, I'd say that no, the kind of faith you describe would not be nearly so foolish an endevour. But I'd rather start at ground zero and work my way up from there, than to start with a baseless set of assumptions and then constantly revise them when new material comes to light. It's possible that both paths have the same end, but I don't think that the unsubstantiated would ever be completely eliminated from the later.


I think my point is that faith and belief inspires works. When I was athiestic, I put that faith and that belief in the fundamental goodness of my fellow man and that became the justification for why I was an activist, because I believed that my fellow men were worthy of the effort and I had faith in them. Mind you, this was nearly complete faith, because they certainly, on the whole, did very little to factually justify it. However, if I quit believing or having faith in them, then what would be the point of working to try and make this a better world?


Compassion. Guilt. Selfishness.
Yes, I know how cynical that sounds.


Now that I've embraced theism again, I still hold that same faith and belief in my fellow man, but I have an additional source of faith that I feel to be worthy of exploration and an additional understanding of why certain things are important to me and an explanation for certain occurances and intuitions throughout my life. While I can (and frequently do) change parts of this faith from day to day as new information becomes available, I don't see this as making it erroneous. Rather, it's part of an unfolding mystery that may turn out to be complete bunk, but feels more "right" than anything I have previously experiences (at least in the world of religion).


Well, that's your prerogative. I can't, and won't even try, to deny that faith has it's uses. Great works have been inspired by faith. But so far as I can tell, there is no truth in faith. No deeper understanding of the universe is factually achieved. And that is the exact claim of faith, barring the word factual.
I guess I think that faith is sort of cheating, trying to get a head start on enlightentment rather than being completely honest with yourself. It just all seems sort of false and self-deluding to me.

But again, how can you justify that judgement when faith and belief are not based on logic or proof? It's like using the principles of dance to judge a science fair. There may be some superficial coorespondence due to shared terminology, but at the fundamental level, the two can not be compared because they are so inherantly different and their aims are so completely opposite.

You just said above that you change parts of your faith from day to day as new information becomes available to you. What kind of information are you talking about if not material evidence or knowedge attained through logical proof? If it's not either of these, then your reasoning is flawed because you're basing revisions to your faith on other forms of unsupported faith. If however you do base those changes on material evidence or logical proof, then they are obviously relevant to your faith.

And what is the aim of faith? That's something I've never understood.

Only because I'm willing to admit that I don't know everything.

Me either. That's the whole point of existance, I think. To find out all you can.


Good question, not sure.

At this point, I'm going to assume that faith refers to a set of principles or beliefs rather than a confident and secure belief in the theology of choice. Given that, I'd say that no, the kind of faith you describe would not be nearly so foolish an endevour. But I'd rather start at ground zero and work my way up from there, than to start with a baseless set of assumptions and then constantly revise them when new material comes to light. It's possible that both paths have the same end, but I don't think that the unsubstantiated would ever be completely eliminated from the later.

Then my next question would be where's ground zero? Can there ever be a true, fundamental starting point? If so, where is it? I think, at least personally, that all knowledge has to begin with a basic assumption, otherwise where do you begin. While I don't rule out the concept of a basic axiomatic truth, none has been put forward that is...well, axiomatic. Thus, it seems to me that in order to create any sort of structure, you have to start with assumption. Other than that, I agree with you.


Compassion. Guilt. Selfishness.
Yes, I know how cynical that sounds.

No, not cynical. Brutally honest, maybe. They're all motivators, but I would quibble and say that they're all based on belief and, perhaps, faith. For compassion to exist, you must believe that your subject is worthy of that compassion. For guilt to function, you must believe in some higher system of value that you are transgressing against. For selfishness to work, you must believe that you are worthy of your own efforts.


Well, that's your prerogative. I can't, and won't even try, to deny that faith has it's uses. Great works have been inspired by faith. But so far as I can tell, there is no truth in faith. No deeper understanding of the universe is factually achieved. And that is the exact claim of faith, barring the word factual.
I guess I think that faith is sort of cheating, trying to get a head start on enlightentment rather than being completely honest with yourself. It just all seems sort of false and self-deluding to me.

Quite possibly it is. As I said, in the lack of an axiomatic truth as a starting point, one must use some sort of assumptive axiomatic origin. This means, like you said, there is always a kernal of doubt, no matter how well your eventual structure hangs together. Personally, I think this is good because it inspires one to try and search harder for that immutable point of origin, but it means that there's always uncertainty.

I'm not sure if faith really does what you think it does. It's a quality, not a destination. One has faith in things, faith in one's fellow humans, faith in the existance of divinity, faith in that there is a deeper understanding to be had. This faith motivates exploration into these areas, but doesn't, in and of itself, promise answers and isn't an answer, in and of itself.

Some people may use it that way, as a blanket answer that protects them from further questioning, but I personally consider that to be an incorrect application. Dismissing a problem with the statement, "Well, I have faith," isn't good enough. However, saying, "I have faith that this problem is solvable because, in the past, similar problems have been solved," is more correct.

I would contend that, instead of being an answer, faith is a motivator, the prime motivator in humans, and that all actions stem from a central belief, or faith, that we can indeed do that action. If you believe you can do something, well, it's a possiblity that you can't, but if you don't believe you can do it, it's a certainty.

So too with religious faith or belief. Because of things I have experienced and see in the world around me, I belive in a divinity and I have faith that I can somehow, in some scope, personally experience some part of that divinity in my present life.


You just said above that you change parts of your faith from day to day as new information becomes available to you. What kind of information are you talking about if not material evidence or knowedge attained through logical proof?

I'm not willing to call it proof. It might be evidence, but certainly not proof. Some of the things that have led me to this conclusion are personal and intuitive (again, that's hardly proof). Other things come from the outside world, like the first time I experienced group clarity at a Quaker meeting or the fact that all societies have some concept of an afterlife or a divinity. Again, neither of these things are proof and some would argue that they're not even evidence, but they fit with my expectations, my, to steal a word from science, hypothesis. Also, to clarify, I don't change my faith as a whole. There are fundamental principles, again, assumptive axioms, that remain constant. What I change are the things I hang off of them.


If it's not either of these, then your reasoning is flawed because you're basing revisions to your faith on other forms of unsupported faith. If however you do base those changes on material evidence or logical proof, then they are obviously relevant to your faith.

Certainly. Faith must be questioned rigorously, otherwise it's little better than a safety blanket. Saying, "I have faith that I can do this...but I'm not going to try because I can't handle it if I'm wrong," is as useless as just saying, "Well, I have faith." For instance, a central tennant of my faith, one of the things that doesn't change, is my conviction that violence is wrong. Period. I believe it represents a rejection of everything that makes us fundamentally human. However, when confronted with terrorism and threats, and the very human desire for vengence and to strike back at someone who's hurt you, it becomes harder and harder to hold that conviction. So I test it and, as of yet, I've found no advantage or rationale for abandoning my pacifism. I have modified that pacifism, though, and now I feel that simple confrontation is necessary, at least through words. This is a refinement of my faith: while I still believe that physical violence is in all cases wrong, I am not willing to meekly give in when confronted with a differing opinion or violence for the sake of pacifism alone, instead chosing to stand up and resist what I consider to be an injustice by any means my intellect may provide.


And what is the aim of faith? That's something I've never understood.

Like I said, I think it's a motivator. The prime motivator. We do what we do because we believe we can do it and have faith that we can accomplish it. It's what bridges the gap between the uncertainty of axiomatic assumptions and action. I have faith that, if I stood up right now, I could walk across the room. There are a myriad of reasons why I might not. I could trip. I could twist my ankle. A space alien may decide this is the exact moment that, for whatever inscrutable reason, this is when they will vaporize my house. I may simply lose interest. However, if I only consider all the reasons why I might not make it across the room, then I'll never make it across. If, instead, I have faith that I can, then I just might.

Me either. That's the whole point of existance, I think. To find out all you can.

I agree.

However, saying, "I have faith that this problem is solvable because, in the past, similar problems have been solved," is more correct.
Sounds pretty logical to me.

Like I said, I think it's a motivator. The prime motivator. We do what we do because we believe we can do it and have faith that we can accomplish it. It's what bridges the gap between the uncertainty of axiomatic assumptions and action. I have faith that, if I stood up right now, I could walk across the room. There are a myriad of reasons why I might not. I could trip. I could twist my ankle. A space alien may decide this is the exact moment that, for whatever inscrutable reason, this is when they will vaporize my house. I may simply lose interest. However, if I only consider all the reasons why I might not make it across the room, then I'll never make it across. If, instead, I have faith that I can, then I just might.
Again, this all sounds very logical to me. But now you're just toying with semantics. I'm fairly certain you knew what I meant when I asked what the aim of faith was. It wasn't a question about why you have faith that you can get up and cross the room on your own two feet. I meant religious faith, and religion in general. The kind of faith salvation would be borne of had it any value in and of itself.

I agree though, faith has no value in and of itself, only as a motivator. Which I've already acknowledged. But if it's only purpose is to motivate, then it definitely feels "false" to ascribe it to some theory of cosmic truth.

Okay, I just went and had lunch, thought about it some more, and came back. The conclusion I came to was that religious faith provides motivation for people with no sense of self. The motivation to go out and live their fucking lives instead of sitting around all day feeling sorry for themselves and whining about their purpose, asking pointless questions like "why are we here? why is life worth living?" People like this need to believe that there is some sort of celestial overseer to go out and just live.
This conclusion frustrates me.

BTW, you do not need to go to church to be a good Christian.

Actually, scripturally speaking, one cannot "go" to church, since the word in the Bible always refers to the people, and not the building. If you are a believer, you are part of the church.

Erroneous means mistaken, which is what any and all beliefs not based on logical proof or material evidence are.

Do you have any logical proof or material evidence for this belief? :p