Nakosis

You'd have to be asking the various other Christians/groups out there. I don't speak for them. Bishop Spong comes to mind. Greek Orthodox, Mormons. (Ok, Mormons are even a little strange to me, Really nice people though) It's a different understanding. A different paradigm. A different base from which conclusions are drawn. For example did Jesus ever say to put your faith in the Bible? Here's what he did say. Jesus never wrote any scripture. Yet you put your faith in the words of the Bible. Is his death, resurrection and divinity what's most important? You find in the Bible what you seek, salvation. I'm not looking for salvation. I just wanted to know how people got so screwed up. The answer I got is that they are always trying to find someway to save themselves. On the one hand Christians will say man cannot save himself. Other the other, the rules one must abide by to be save. Ok, I hope that works out for you.

Unless you are able to prove for yourself the existence and cause of AGW then how else do you decide which side to come down on. If you have the where-with-all to study global climate change yourself, derive your own conclusions, that great. Most, not having the where-with-all have to put their faith in the research of others. Sure, continued faith should require some validation. I don't know. People put their faith in others for odd reasons. I'm sure they all think they have good reason to. Perhaps they should have less faith in people. These Scientist as you say are strangers to me and I'd suspect most who decide to trust them or not. They could be lying and you'd never know until you did your own research. Your faith is made stronger because of what you've experienced for yourself. But, it's still faith because of what you don't know. People know what they know. But sometimes people know what they know because they've trusted the claims of someone else. Someone they don't know. People will trust what they want to believe with very little question. They will distrust what they don't want to believe. Truth has very little to do with this. For example, I have some liberal friends who trust Al Gore. This global warming issue. Al Gore said it, it must be true. My conservative friends wouldn't trust Al Gore if he told them his name was Al Gore. Neither group really knows Al Gore. They know of him. This perhaps makes it seem like Al is not a stranger. However they don't really know him. They think this "knowledge" of him is enough to know whether he is trust-worthy of not. It's not but most people still act as if it is. You have your reasoning for what you choose to trust. Everyone has that. I actually spend more time questioning the people I've chosen to trust and honestly most those people didn't really deserve the trust I put in them. The nature of man is not without sin is it? Yes I ask people why they've chosen to trust what/who they trust. I think it is an important question. However you don't need to satisfy me. I think it's to their own benefit and if they are satisfied with the answers then great. Truth is sometimes I need people to ask me. I get comfortable with a belief and forget to question how trustworthy it is sometimes. People do trust too easily. I see it over and over again. Often it is the blind leading the blind. Don't you think it is a good idea to validate that who's ever lead you happen to be following can actually see? That's not always easy to do. Sometimes the blind think they can actually see. To heck with what I think about the Bible, Jesus or your faith. You don't need to convince anyone else, just be certain for yourself.

Faith is a word used a lot so I'm trying to get a better understanding. So, do you see, say... Faith in one's wife or best friend as being different then faith in God? Or well, lets take it from the Bible... You have to hope for something because you don't have actual knowledge of it's truth. You must believe. If you know something then why would belief be necessary? "earnestly seek him"? Why? They don't know where God is. Don't you see a common theme here? That of lacking knowledge of some type? If you tell me you have red hair, I don't know that is true. I've no reason to think you'd lie about it. Still I don't know so I'd have to have some faith in you to believe your claim. However if I knew you. Maybe you lived next door. I would have seen you and know for certain the color of your hair. My lack of this knowledge makes the faith necessary.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith? Let me ask, could you describe in one word what you think faith means? This is the definition I'm currently working with, from Merriam Webster... faith: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> So conviction... Though I think another here didn't like the term. Strong conviction, but you said only one word.

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith? No one can be a skeptic of everything. Even science relies on "faith" to a degree. Higgs Boson is a good example. Scientists are putting a lot of faith in it's existence and in their ability to find it with CERN (how much money and resources has their faith given to this project?). I don't know... One can try to be a skeptic of everything. I think what you are saying is a person has to believe in something? Because... and this is the point of my thinking, a person can't know everything. So a person has to trust/believe in something. Choose to put your faith in something. For example some people put their faith in certain scientists when it come to man made global warming. If you knew for certain that this was or was not the case. You wouldn't need to have faith in the claims of scientists. You would know the truth. Then the people who didn't know could decide whether or not to have faith in your claims. For what you know for sure, 100% certain, why would you need faith in what others claim about it. It's what a person doesn't know that requires them to put their faith in someone or something else. If a person knew absolutely, why would they need to have faith in anyone else. Their own knowledge would be sufficient wouldn't it?

This is exactly how Confucius stated it in his Analects (500 BCE). Regards, UF Confucius also used the term Junzi which was his idea man, the perfect person. Literally translated Junzi means the Lord's son. Of course here Lord meaning King or Emperor.

Yes, we use the word metaphorically to mean what moves/motivates us. Spirit of love. Means our actions are motivated by love. Spirit of sin, our actions motivated by sin etc... Metaphysically, maybe more. All the mental goings on that make-up our personality. To act in the name of Jesus. To act according to his motivations, his values. Someone told me before, old Greek guy, that soul was the building block of life. GEN 2:7 Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Spirit is the product of soul and matter/flesh. Really through the struggle of life, man's spirit is forged.

Correct, well as far as I'm concerned. One cannot say something is absolutely wrong. I do not condemn anyone. I don't have perfect knowledge so I wouldn't trust the absoluteness of my opinions of right and wrong. Hitler was a puppet. He was weak willed and people around him fed his ego to manipulate him to their own purpose. That doesn't make Hitler a good guy, but he was a victim life/circumstances. Most everyone thinks themselves justified in their actions. His hatred of the Jews was probably fuel by things like the Bible. I always wonder by what idealism people justify their actions. Not to blame Christianity here, but people who justify themselves with absolutes, well it's hard to get them to question validity/reasonableness of those absolutes. I would not condemn Hitler but I/we'd still have to deal with him. We, the people of the US and other nations have some common morality. We can judge his actions as wrong and take steps to stop his actions. I don't need absolutes for that, just consensus. People don't like to accept it but I think the truth is might makes right. Do you favor the death penalty? Some see it as murder and so immoral. In ancient Greek pedophilia was society's norm. Seems kind of obvious that right and wrong are not absolute for everyone. We have laws to enforce a common morality. However laws don't change people. It may make them hide how they feel. Just as likely they will act covertly. So if you judge according to some absolute idealism or some enforce common morality what difference does it make? Maybe people prefer to feel justified in their condemnation of others... I don't feel a need to condemn anyone. Maybe that's why I don't feel a need for absolutes. I deal with the behavior of others. According to a, hopefully, rational understanding and according to my values. Absolutes mean nothing to me if they don't agree with my values. If God came to you and told you that you had to sacrifice your son/daughter to show your faithfulness would you? Or would you risk Hell to save them?

Ok, then let me ask you, why do you think you need faith?

When you are taught something, you test their words as best as you can. If you find validation for their words through your own experience does not give you greater conviction in the words of the teacher? Unfortunately the risky part is if those words fail you, fail to be validated. It's not a good feeling to find one's faith betrayed. It is almost easier, safer to go through life without faith. Still I think it's a person's nature to seek the person or idea they can place their faith in. People always hope to find it. Consider this promise of Heaven. Something you won't be able to validate in this life time. An idea you don't have to risk being betrayed by. A very safe belief to put one's faith in. However I've decided not to accept a belief because it is safe or convenient. The truth may not be convenient or safe. So I can't afford to accept an idea just because it is less risky. I think it is fair to expect validation for our faith and have reasonable justification for our conviction. Which may still betray you. Best one can do is seek reasonable validation. I may still be wrong, but I tried my best. That is what is important to me, that I tried. To gain knowledge. When one is ignorant they don't have much choice. When one is young and ignorant about the world they have to put their trust in their parents. They have little choice. Even if you find your trust betrayed, you still learn something from it. Because without ignorance there would be no need for faith. If you were born into the world knowing everything that could possibly be know would you need to have any faith in what your parents told you? You would know for yourself if your parents were right or wrong. It's because of what you don't know that you have to place your faith in them.

One should do their best to verify the truth before accepting it or rejecting it don't you think? If I fail to verify what someone else claims and accept it without question isn't that also on my head. I tried that but found a lot of inconstancy in what has been claim as the truth. Also it's not very interactive. It's difficult to engage these author to point out their inconsistencies. However if you don't have the time, I understand. Well, you aren't right. You missed it entirely. Actually I was right, you didn't accept it. Yes made your opinion clear. you need this to be true to support your claims. I don't need it to be true or false. I'll just point out it is not consistent with what others have said. How do you know that is the worst thing that will happen if you are wrong. Say for example the Muslims are right or the Jews are right or the Heathens? You are taking the chance that what you don't know won't hurt you. I at least consider the possibility that what I don't know might indeed hurt. So I'm doing my best to find and verify what is true. If I fail at least I tried. Regardless of what happens, I won't feel any shame of guilt for that. Again you assume much. I hope it works out that you are right. And you don't assume any risk, along with all the others who are confident in their truths. I actually hope there is nothing at stake, but not for my sake. Actually you've been making outlandish claims on my behalf. And here I am. Where you tell me to go back to that thread.

Which one are you? I find I always learn more from my mistakes then my successes. I've made a lot of mistakes. I don't that that has made me wise, but I have come to appreciate individuals who have taken the time to provide me correction. If you find me mocking feel free to call me on it. It's sometimes tempting in the midst of an argument when one doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. However I try to remain patient and consider everyone is doing the best they can to explain their particular position. I also sometimes get tempted into sarcasm. While the intent is humor, it doesn't always come across well in a forum.

Yes that was a very interesting find. Now while it's not unreasonable to consider this maybe that alter the people who excavated the site and numerous other archeologist are far from as certain as you seem to be. As I said, history is full of opinions. Here's a reference you might be interested in. Mount Ebal Actually the way I see it, I can't afford to reject anything especially something beyond the scope of my experienced. I ask for validation because I'm interested in learning, especially in cases where I might be wrong. Sure if one is certain of the context. However, especially in historical situations context can get cloudy. I suspect this prompted Paul to say. "1 Corinthians 13:12 Now all we can see of God is like a cloudy picture in a mirror. Later we will see him face to face. We don't know everything, but then we will, just as God completely understands us." I think it remains reasonable to question that which we assume certainty in. Language is funny, especially English. Much of our ability to communicate comes not so much through the words that we use but a pool of shared common experiences. For example the phrase "that man is green". I've heard the phrase before, I am aware of the connection between green and envy. Because of that share context I could probably figure out what you meant. Or at least be aware that their might be different possible meanings and so take the time to inquire further. The problem with historical documents is that the non-verbalized context is missing. We can assume like I might do with the phrase "that man is green," however further inquiry is greatly limited. The author is not around to clarify the context for us. So I think important to remain open to questioning one's own certainty. Yes, you misunderstood the context of my statements. I'm trying to clarify that for you. Yes, thank you. That was quite interesting. I think the certainty you assume is just as risky. If you've misunderstood any part of the Bible or Jesus you could end up misleading those who have chosen to rely on your certainty. Ok, but you remain arguing against your own assumptions. So even as I tell you the truth of my intent you remain certain in your assumptions. And, you see no risk in this?

Makes it very convenient to be a Christian. Who said anything about rejecting? I'm talking about validating. All I've done is suggested it is better to validate the truth of something for yourself. I've even agreed with some of your points. What you have done is find cause to argue. I suspect that'd be true regardless of what I say. Where have I done this? I'm sorry you are not arguing against me, you are arguing against something else. I'll accept my ignorance. I've offered to let you inform me. However since you see no responsibility in this, I'll stop asking. Maybe someone else will be more willing. Ok, so they were killed because they believed Jesus was the Messiah, they believed he was Lord, they believe he was a direct descendent of David. I don't suppose you're going to accept I was right here... Isn't the import thing here whether your understanding Jesus is right or wrong? Whether your understanding of God is right or wrong. If you are wrong, you take the same risk as I. At least I can claim I tried my best to validate what was true. "Sorry God, I tried but your Christians turned out not to be too helpful. It wasn't their responsibility to help me validate what they claimed to be true." Then this all should have been easy for you. btw I had already looked at your thread but you started off saying any questions that challenged the claims would be ignored. So I didn't really see any point.

Ok, then pick something you feel has been verified and lets test it. I didn't claim anything. I asked you a question. But still no guarantee of understanding the intent or context of the author. Who's doing that. You first agree with me then create a strawman argument to attack. Ok, then pick something if you are willing and lets test it. I'd pick something but it's your belief. You'd know better then I what you feel has been validated.

I don't think anyone is in a place where they can judge the fullness and value of someone else's life. Though certainly they can judge the fullness and value of their own. Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38 Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." Christian or not I think there is reason to study the words of Jesus.

Indeed, here's another one that comes to mind.... Proverbs 9:8 Do not rebuke a mocker or he will hate you; rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

I find historical "fact" to contain a lot of opinion. So to me it's not as reliable as personal experience and basically it's better determine the truth of something for yourself. Any challenge to its integrity would be what you find for yourself to be true. What would you rely on more, something you experience for yourself or something you've read about? Ok, fair enough. However this leaves you pick the meaning that is appropriate for you while someone else can pick a different meaning, appropriate for them. It kind of fits with my observations. You use of the word faith is not universal among all people or even all Christians. However you say this is what the word means to you in the context that you use it, I'll accept that. Again historical references are filled with opinion and bias. You still pick who you choose to listen to for your own reasons and there's no guarantees you choose correctly. History is a crap-shoot where you have to hope your resources are reliable. For me that is why I prefer what I know and what I've experienced for myself. One really has no idea how much historical documents have been altered, purposely or not from the original intent of the author. Also as you point out words are used and applied in different ways. There's no guarantees the mental context of any author is appropriately understood. We fit the words to our own context. Our context is always going to be biased towards our own experiences and what we were taught. What of you? If you are found to have relied on wrong information. A wrong interpretation. Wrong teachings from a particular church. Would you not also be accountable? I am perfectly fine with being accountable for me. I did the best I could to determine what was true. If that is not good enough then so be it. However why should I listen to your claims or anyone else's that don't match with my experience and what I've found out for myself? Yes faith his a starting point. A small amount of faith is necessary in any teacher. However at some point that faith has to be validated. My objection is to faith that never gets validated. With history there is only so much that can be validated. One has to take care with what they place their faith in. Too many people these days are way too trusting. They hear what they want to and too easily accept the truth of it. Sure it goes both ways. Sometimes people reject the truth regardless of any validation because it's something they don't want to hear. That is why I think it best to take the validation of truth into one's own hands, as much as possible. It's not the argument I'm making. We have to rely on what was written since the person is not here to speak for themselves. We have to rely on the accuracy of translation. We have to rely that none of the test was altered since we have no original copies. We have to rely on our understanding of the context intended by the author. The human factor is involved in all of this. Humans are not always reliable. So my "advice" is what you do choose to have faith in, you do so with a grain of salt until you've done everything possible to validate to truth for yourself. Sorry, it doesn't match with what I've read and doesn't really even make sense. Why would they be a threat because they claimed to know Jesus or even claimed to have see someone come back to life. Seems little justification to go around killing people. More likely they were killed because they believe Jesus was the Son of God and they believe his teachings had the authority of God. I don't care if you are right are wrong, however you should, for your own knowledge, verify your claims. I don't think you are going to be able to do that here.

Without divine authority a moral law has to support by a rational, validated argument. Still this is far from universal. It's morality by agreed enforcement. Much easier to claim such moral laws have the authority of God, as long as people fear/respect that authority. Easier to get acceptance.

I don't see a issue as long as qualified by a proper understanding of objective. A moral standard without bias or prejudice, based on fact. I think that is what the "moral" Atheists are looking for. Still someone or group has to develop this code. Isn't this what a society does with it's laws? And, you have to get buy-in/acceptance from the rest. Like the US Constitution? This is the code we've put down to legally judge the people. It's tries to be objective. Still there is no guarantee such "laws" are free from bias or prejudice. For Judeans the OT was their legal moral code. The constitution of their society. There is no constitution for the current state of Israel because many Jews feel they need no laws other then their Bible. In the US the Bible has no legal authority except the symbolic promise to tell the truth. The legal separation of church and state is written into our "objective" moral code. What do you think? Isn't the laws a country pass/enforce really an objective moral code? They dictate a legally enforceable right and wrong. Still this does not change our individual morals. What we inherently consider right and wrong.

Dear nebula, I'm sorry I made a mess of your thread. I was curious about what people thought of faith. To make amends, I promise to watch the video. That is what the thread is about after all. I suspect it'll be more useful to comment on the video here if I have any questions or concerns. Otherwise I thank the other posters for indulging me.

If a gift then one has to wait for it to be given. Then my deference to truth, really above my own or anyone else's opinion shouldn't be an issue. I like to question things and express my ideas. Seems the best why to get feedback. Best way to examine what people believe and why.

So, God working in your life would result in.... personal experience? Proof is not my word. I used it at the preference of another poster. However, yes God showing himself to be faithful would be.... personal experience? So we shouldn't rely on the experts? We should rely on what you take it to mean... because? Such as, and what do you think this evidence satisfies, intellectually? Indeed that is true, my questioning of these claims shouldn't be a problem. Either they can be validated or not. So there is no reason to trust something written if it can't be validated. Which seems to have come as a result of, in your case, personal experience. Again, not my word. You prefer to call it evidence. Something you've had personal experience with that support you faith/conviction/trust. If all Christians held the same meanings/used the same verbiage I'd be happy to go along. I'm not picky. However so many Christians, I sometimes get confused over who's preference is what. So you know for a fact that the gospels were written ten days later? So you know for a fact that they weren't killed for their belief but because they claimed to have seen Jesus come back to life? If you have some resource, beyond someone's opinion, to support these things, I'll listen.

Kind Sir I Do Not Claim To Know The Imaginations Of Your Heart Ok, you thought a disservice being done. I just wondered what you thought it might be. You don't understand. What I value can't be taken from me. I am what I am. I have no illusions of grandeur. What I believe is that the truth will make itself known, whether I believe in it are not. Once the truth is revealed everyone will have to accept it for what it is. That is what I have faith in. In the mean time I will try to honestly examine my ignorance and work to increase my knowledge/understanding by whatever manner makes itself available to me.

I don't have anything against the gospels or Jesus. My issue is with people who assume the authority to speak for them. I say let them speak for themselves. They are accountable for what they say. Just as you are accountable for your actions. Jesus and the gospels are not accountable for your actions. Jesus and the gospels are not to be held accountable for the actions of Christians or Christianity. My point was any issues I have with individual Christians or the doctrine of any particular Christian church I don't hold Jesus accountable for. I hold only the individuals involved accountable for what they claim, for their own actions. What I respect, what I give authority to is the truth. If Jesus is the truth then what we accept is one in the same. I will give authority to the truth, wherever it takes me.