RE: Faith Vs Knowledge
April 9, 2014 at 9:29 am
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2014 at 9:34 am by archangle.)
(April 5, 2014 at 1:58 am)orangebox21 Wrote:(April 4, 2014 at 12:44 am)max-greece Wrote:
Thanks for your patience in answering my questions. Too often, myself included, people can rush to a conclusion without understanding the argument. While I would like to go into greater detail, and would be happy to upon your request, the simplist answer is found in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Here we see that some who prophesy in the name of Christ, cast out devils in the name of Christ, and had done wonderful works in the name of Christ, are in fact not followers of Christ, but rather workers of iniquity. This is a sobering passage for all who profess to be in Christ (myself included). Ultimately, as you have stated, no man can no for sure what's in the heart of another man, i.e. that their faith is genuine, and so an ultimate judgment cannot be made by men. What we do know is that not everyone who claims to be a Christian is one. While I cannot condemn an individual I can use what scripture says. What I mean is that I can't say someone is going to hell as that person could come to repentance later today. What I can say is what the scripture gives me authority to say. That those who do certain things will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.
My speculative opinion is that Mother Theresa's cause for doubt was because she was putting her hope in her own good works, rather than on Jesus Christ (and this stems from the Roman Catholic Church's teachings, that Christ's sacrifice alone is not enough, that a person must add their own good works to be saved). And this should be cause for doubt as we know that "no one is saved through works (personal rightousness), but rather it is through grace that no man may boast." We put our faith in Jesus Christ and his (personal) rightousness is imputed to us. So that when God looks at us he no longer sees us but rather the rightousness of Christ.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:44 am)max-greece Wrote: Your summary of my argument appears consistent with my position.It's hard on a forum to portray tone so understand when I say the following it is not meant to be insulting but rather a strictly academic statement. Given your premises, you cannot logically infer your conclusion. The short reason why is that two of your premises violate the law of non-contratiction. If you are interested in discussions of logic I'd be happy to offer a more technical explanation.
(April 4, 2014 at 12:32 pm)Tonus Wrote: Knowing that god exists, if he makes it plain, would certainly not require faith. Believing that he would do what he proposed would require faith as defined by Paul-- a conviction of things not seen (since they are promises of future action). But believing in god should not be a matter of faith; if he was able to make himself known directly and physically to people for thousands of years, he can do so now without issue. That he does not do so is not a matter of faith, and I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration.For the sake of space I shortened what was a very well written response by you. I found agreement with your writing until the above paragraph. I'll summarize your statements:
With respect to your conclusion 'I don't think we should have faith in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' seems to have substituted the word 'faith' where you should have written 'belief'. Did you mean to write 'belief' in his existence as you have previously stated that 'belief in God is not a matter of faith? If you wrote "I don't think we should have belief in his existence without such a clear and obvious demonstration' that would be consistent to your definition of terms. If so I would then summarize your conclusion as: "If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically then He does not exist."
So the argument is:
Premise 1. Faith is believing that God will do what He has said.
Premise 2. Belief in God is not a matter of faith.
Premise 3. Belief in God is a matter of God revealing himself to people directly and physically.
Premise 4. If God has revealed himself to people directly and physically for thousands of years then He is able to do the same now.
Conclusion. If God does not reveal himself to people directly and physically now then He does not exist.
Is this a fair and accurate representation of your argument?
(April 4, 2014 at 2:59 pm)Quantum Theorist Wrote: This god you adore withheld the knowledge of good and evil to Adam and Eve according to the story. So how could they be blamed for their actions? They can't be accountable if they have no comprehension of right and wrong.(April 4, 2014 at 6:51 pm)Alex K Wrote: Now, how were they supposed to know that they should do as they're being told, if they didn't know good from bad?(April 4, 2014 at 6:59 pm)truthBtold Wrote: So ur saying they had no knowledge of evil and were punished because of that... that makes no sense..Their comprehension or non-comprehension of good and evil is not what they were being held accountable to but rather their faith in God of which they understood they had a choice. Do we have faith (trust in God's words) or are we faithless and go our own way? This is the question they faced and we face now. And we have all made the same choice.
Your claim would be accurately stated if God gave no command to not eat from the tree of the knowledge between good and evil and no warning of the consequences, then waited for them to eat of it, and then held them accountable for it. That is however not what happened.
It should also be noted that the consequences were also clearly stated: "you shall die."
****************************************************
Messed up the cute and paste
more accurately ... "you shall know".
But to "know more" means you are not as you were, "you then" is dead.
You "now" has been given a breath into "life".
The ego holds tightly onto "you then", thinking that is the only you there is. In some ways it is right. But it is in error thinking that this body is all there is.
