Nakosis

Believe it or not, I accept that. However you understand your "revelation" does me no good. It's yours and you have to act/choose how you feel it's appropriate to do so. I also have to act according to my experiences. I'm not saying my experiences are any better, it's just like you, I have to work with what I've got. Thank you, you've answer the original question. Faith gives way to increased knowledge. I wasn't knocking faith. I just wanted to see if the purpose of faith was understood. I suppose people thought it was a trick question. I just wanted to see what people thought. I'm actually rather happy with your response. What is maddening, and kind of interesting, is the misconceptions that arise from a simple question. Like I never said I didn't have faith. It's pretty hard to get through life without it.

If you were given you a house that had 4 bedrooms 3 baths,hardwood heated floors, grade A appliances, huge kitchen, 3600 sq feet, finished basement, that would be nice right. But what if it is full of mold, had grease all over the walls, plumbing issues, foundation issues, and had a smell that can't be removed, would you be satisified because you had a house. Understand that the house may be given, but due to other factors this is not the house to be had. There are factors that has caused this house to be what it is, so being satisified that you have a house makes no sense. There is no real satisfaction to be had. This is the same thing for those who refuse God. There can be no real satisfaction. Well, in talking about houses, I'd rather fix-up the house myself. I don't want the perfect house handed to me. It won't have as much value to me as something I put my work and effort into. It's a challenge. I'd want the challenge, not the house. A house without the challenge has little value to me. But that's me. I don't expect others to value the same things I do. Even the smell you say couldn't be removed. I'd probably have faith that I could and want to try. Even if impossible. It's the trying, the effort, the understanding gained I look for.

Ah Kind Sir You Do Yourself And Your Loved Ones A Grave Disservice My loved ones make their own choices. I respect theirs and they respect mine. What disservice do you imagine here? If there is a God, then he gave me life. I'm not asking for anything more from him. I'm already happy with what I've been given. You want something more. I don't.

Faith. Yes, you have reason to trust strongly the claims of others. All I'm saying is if you have personal knowledge, personal experience with these things, you wouldn't need faith. I'm not even saying you shouldn't have faith. It's your choice where you place your faith. I'm just pointing out why faith is needed. It's what we don't know. Our ignorance which makes faith necessary.

That is so sad..... an eternal life and a personal relationship with the creator of the universe is at your fingertips....... and you don't care... how sad. Why? I'm getting what I want and you are hopefully getting what you want. What is there to be sad about?

Sorry, don't feel ignored. I actually read your post and was taking time to consider a reply. Repeat: I believe you have a misunderstanding of what the word "faith" means. You can research this yourself if you would like, but the Hebrew and Greek words which are translated into English as faith means "trust" (in Hebrew it has the added emphasis of "strong trust" and in Greek that of "persuasion, confidence"). All you've done with testing is confirming what or whom you have put faith in. No biggie. I actually agree with you here, as I pointed out in others posts conviction seems a better understanding of what is meant by faith. Whoever gave you this idea was seriously in error. Well there is a balance between knowledge and ignorance. If you know something for yourself then it's not a matter of trusting someone else. However if you are ignorant about a subject then you have to trust what someone else claims is true. Like the word pistis(faith). I'm not a language expert. So we both went to an expert who has knowledge on the subject. If I was not ignorant about these things I wouldn't need to trust the experts. I'm kind of neutral here. What do I know... I wasn't there, I didn't see what they saw. I'm ignorant of what actually occurred. It'd depend on how well I knew the person. If a number of people who I knew, who I had cause to trust made such a claim, I'd have stronger trust, more conviction in that claim.

That belief is not based on an interpretation of the gospels? If not then what is the source of your belief? Not really. I am not sure what you are basing that on. Speaking with other Christians. You get two or more Christians together and they certainly can have a heck of an argument about the correct interpretation of the Bible. Usually ends up with them accusing each other of not being a real Christian. Didn't think you were. When I teach somebody something it's to give them tools so they can determine the truth of the matter for themselves. I'm always a little disappointed when people take me at my word. When people can determine what is true then it's just there to accept. There's nothing to argue about. Nothing to doubt or have faith in. However some people would still choose to lie to themselves then accept the truth. That's not true. But those that would disagree you'd likely see as not true Christians. I mean right or wrong? The only true Christians are those that agree with you on these points? Well like the deity of Jesus. There are many who claim to be Christian who don't agree.

Certainly not me. When I said don't lie I meant don't lie to yourself. Some like to think they have more importance then they actually do. Kind of a vanity. Kind of an important obligation one should have to themselves, not to lie to themselves. At least I think so. I'd be happy to know the truth about things but I'm not looking for eternal life. I'm happy with this life, friendship, love. I get to help people. I enjoy the struggle of life, being able to overcome problems. Life is good, I enjoy what I have now. It's enough.

Sorry you don't get to decide my focus. Again feel free to ignore my posts as you've pretty much been ignoring the content of them anyway.

You need to read my post again because I already answered this question. I find it very offensive that you tell me "do not lie" - as if I've already lied. My previous post stands as written - read it. The proper adjectives and qualifiers are already given. Another post like this one and I'll ignore your posts. Ok, well I find it offensive when people imply they speak for anyone other then themselves. So please feel free to put me on ignore.

Knowledge of what? Personal experience? I'm all for personal experience. What is the source of your knowledge? Proof, something you experience from yourself. Proof provides knowledge doesn't it? Checking the Thayer’s lexicon "pistis" means “conviction of the truth of anything.” Besides aren't you referring to your opinion here? Why would you have faith in something you have no opinion ion? So do you usually trust the claims of people you don't know? I'm not saying you should distrust them but why trust the claims of someone you've never met? Sure try something out, if it works for you great but then your trust comes from your personal experience, not some person you never met. People are way too trusting of others. I think the internet shows us that. I mean I have no reason to trust you or you I, true? Just I don't really know you. You maybe a great person maybe on something unimportant I'll give you some benefit of the doubt. However if you make some claim about truth, I'm going to check it out, no offense. I'd expect you to do the same. Great, knowledge or proof if you prefer. That's all I'm saying. Confident because of proof or because of what someone else claims? If you got proof, you got proof. I just see don't a need for faith for something you have proof of. Or they believe they were telling the truth. Memory is not that reliable. I am often very certain one thing or another happen a certain way only to find later it didn't. People can be talked into seeing something they didn't and convince they didn't see something they did. Why should these Apostles be any different? People die for what they believe is true all the time. It doesn't make it true, it only means they believe in the truth of it. That's what conviction does.

By Christian faith I take it you mean the Christian religion. Christian ideology is a belief about God developed by other men/women such as yourself based on a interpretation of the gospels. Even that interpretation is varied among the different Christian denominations. Those who know of what they speak should speak with one voice should they not? This is not the case with Christianity. Christianity speaks with many voices. Shouldn't that alone be a cause to question? Christians claim the authority of Jesus in support of their beliefs. However I wonder sometimes if Jesus would actually claim responsibility for those beliefs. So you object to the Christian faith on the basis of lack of consensus between Christians? I find this difficult for two reasons 1 - that we really do have a large degree of consensus on the major issues 2 - that Christianity should be examined on it's merits (historical validation of the bible and claims of Jesus) rather than on Christians Candice No not consensus. Consensus just means you've gotten a majority to agree one way or the other. That doesn't mean the majority is right and the minority is wrong. Something shouldn't accepted as true because that is what a majority believe. It should be true because it is true despite what any number of people say. That something is true should be self-evident to whomever evaluates it. It should need agreement/consensus. Sorry that's me not you. I don't mean to being telling you what you should do. I personally am not going to accept something based on what the majority say. I'm just telling my reasons. You of course have your own for accepting what you don't or not accepting. I don't want to be too mean here but just so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't really see much connection between Christianity and Jesus. Christianity uses Jesus as an icon from which to gets its authority. So I don't have a problem with what Jesus taught, what is in the gospels. My problem is the assumption of authority that Christianity has over them. So yes Christianity has to stand on it's own merits. Not the merits of Jesus. Christians certainly have to stand own their own merits, not the merits of Jesus. Just to understand, any issues I have are not with Jesus.

Sorry, grabbed part of your post, hope you don't mind. If I weren't to try something it's because of not having faith in the person who told me something was possible. If I had reason to believe that person, I'd probably would try it. What do I know, it might work. So just enough faith is necessary to give it a try. If it works, then you have even more reason to trust the person who told you it was possible. If it doesn't, less reason to trust the person. Yes hearing others witness about their experience give a person conviction. Gives them a willingness to try to give an idea a chance. Multi-level marketing uses this principle to great success.

We are all human, we share the experience of being human. It's not surprising that many share a lot of the same values. Of course Christianity has been invasive in our culture for a couple of thousand of years. Its a part of the culture you were raised in. It is part of your thinking, it is you. It would seem natural to you to think that everyone has similar values. Yes generally nihilism is the idea that morals are not inherently objective. That there is no objective meaning to life. That's ok with me as then we are free to give life meaning. Life is what you make of it and life means what you choose it to mean. As to the things you listed, I judge them morally wrong according to my values as you do according to yours. I don't need my values to be objective, which I don't even think is possible, to judge something good or bad. They are my values. They are part of who I am. That is enough for me. I don't need them to be your values, though we do happen to share some it seems. Also isn't obvious that there are those that don't share the same values? Otherwise none of that bad stuff would happen. However I suspect that you like many others want some certainty that their values are good/proper and correct? I don't know that may values are correct with any certainty but then I don't know that I could change my values even if I wanted to. I mean you could judge me according to your values. However it wouldn't change how I feel about things. I know some pretend to live up to certain moral values. maybe because others impose those values on them but deep down, their values remain the same. They just hide it from others. I like what I like. I don't like what I don't like. Hopefully we can get along. I'd rather be open and honest with who I am then pretend something that is not really me in order to live up to someone else's expectation because that would just be a lie.

I can see you put a lot of work into your post. I hope I don't butcher the formatting too badly. I possess a sense of fellowship with my fellow man. I've no desire to take advantage of my fellowman or be a nuisance without cause. That I think should cover most of the above. However it's not to inherent a kingdom. It's just who I am. I kind of like people. Whether a promise of a kingdom or not, it is not a cause for me to change how I deal with others. You know what I mean? I'm not looking for a reward. I simply find no need to cause harm. Then the law is for those inclined to cause harm and really a guidance to deal with them don't you think? I trust what I see and experience. I try to be honest with myself and see where it leads. However I find the words of Jesus comforting. It's the words that draw me not a promise. I'm not looking for eternal life. I'm looking for better understanding of who I am and how better to deal with the here and now.

Sounds good to me. If you don't act on your faith/convictions then one really doesn't have faith. They are just given lip service. If you say you have faith in a teacher but then don't act according to their teaching you are just trying to fool the teacher.

That is not really true. Faith is based on evidence. Faith is neither blind nor ignorant regardless of what context you are speaking of. Knowledge is based on evidence. Faith is necessary because of what you don't know. There's a balance here knowledge and faith. Knowledge/evidence may give cause for your faith however knowledge/experience should replace faith so there is less need for it. Ignorance is not a crime, it's a reality. One needs faith in a teacher because of their own ignorance, not because of what they know. I think a better translation of the Greek word pistis (usually translated to faith) is "conviction". An old Greek friend of mine once told me "veneration" was a better understanding. In any case conviction seems to fit your usage of the word faith. When you say faith, I'll think conviction if that is alright with you. Sure they knew what they knew. Unlike the rest of us who must have faith in their claims. However I'm not good at having faith in people I didn't know. I've enough trouble having faith in people I do know. Ok, "hope" for because you don't know the truth of the matter. One's lack of knowledge necessitates hope. Seems to support my original thinking. The evidence of things unseen.... What does that even mean? Maybe it means something one imagines to be true but has no supporting evidence? Obviously if you had been there and seen the resurrection you would need faith/hope the event occurred, you have knowledge of it and no one could tell you different.

Then we speak as equals.

By Christian faith I take it you mean the Christian religion. Christian ideology is a belief about God developed by other men/women such as yourself based on a interpretation of the gospels. Even that interpretation is varied among the different Christian denominations. Those who know of what they speak should speak with one voice should they not? This is not the case with Christianity. Christianity speaks with many voices. Shouldn't that alone be a cause to question? Christians claim the authority of Jesus in support of their beliefs. However I wonder sometimes if Jesus would actually claim responsibility for those beliefs.

I have traveled in many circles. I have even laid my hands on others where they claim I've healed some ailment of theirs. Belief can be very powerful. The human touch can be healing. Even scientifically this is acknowledged. I have no reason to doubt your experience but claims like this is far from unique to Christian folk.

I am not a Christian. However I do have a lot of respect for Jesus and what he taught.

Then what happens to faith? It's a simple question. Exactly right. Faith should be replaced by knowledge. Faith in a teacher is necessary because understanding is lacking. Even if proof were offered it would not be understood. It is enough to get started. However the goods have to be delivered. At some point, faith given has to be justified. One cannot/should not continue in faith with someone who does not deliver. Are you sure? You speak for every Christian? You know for a fact that every Christian speaks from experience? Think about this. Do not lie.

You mean the word faith in a strange way. If it is something you've experienced then it's that/those experiences you are relying on, not faith. Faith and hope have about the same meaning. For example "I have faith my spouse won't cheat on me." "I hope my spouse won't cheat on me." I don't see a big difference there. However you seem to think faith has something hope does not. Faith, hope, trust can usually be used interchangeably. Anyway the point was that if you test something for yourself and find it works you are relying more on your own experiences and less on faith. This seems to be exactly what you are doing but say it makes your faith more solid whereas it should actually be making your knowledge more solid. I think a person who speaks from knowledge gained by their personal experience much more convincing then someone relying more on faith. Maybe not absolutely convincing but at least it carries more weight.

Faith is necessitated by ignorance. Why would you want to solidify it? What are you being convinced by? By what you don't know? By what someone else tells you is true? In the Bible Jesus healed the sick, brought the dead back to life. If you could do that, hey that'd be very convincing in my book. If all one has is faith without personal knowledge and experience, that's a little hard to trust in don't you think? If the only thing you are relying on is faith you can't really tell anybody anything that you actual know of. You wouldn't even know if you are misleading them because you don't know. You only have faith that something is true. You'd be asking others to have faith in something that is a matter of your own ignorance.

Hmm... didn't we already have this conversation? I assume you'll come across my other reply.