What is "FAITH"

[fr0d0]

Unsubstantiated claims abound still, so I'm tracking that, at least.

Yes. We're talking about our belief position, a belief that you don't hold. If we are to get anywhere in discussing this together we have to trust that the other party is telling us the truth as they see it. When a group confirms it you can assume it holds true for that group, and that it is not a unique opinion at odds with the group.

[Faith No More]

So we are talking about your path to conversion rather than addressing the subject of Christianity as it stands.

Cool. I'm glad we're clear on that.

Actually, I'm trying to go down the path of getting people to substantiate their claims.

Don't worry. I'm not asking you to get there.

---

Oh...man... I'm going to have to go with the Christians on this one. I don't think he was redefining it at all. Evil as a concept still applies, but I think they simply meant that rejecting god is an evil act, but not necessarily an act that makes it evil incarnate.

Unsubstantiated claims abound still, so I'm tracking that, at least.

The concept of evil could exist without god being real, right? Doesn't that make defining embracing evil as refusing god a redefinition?

[Consilius]

Wow! Matthew 19:24! We haven't SEEN that verse before! Well, I guess it's it.

Hardy har?

Now, seriously, you know you can JUST ask the Christians who hold up that Bible rather than making isolated condemnations. If we believe everything in that book is true, don't you think we'd be able to explain it? You know, the 2000 year old, Middle Eastern, translated, copied, edited version?

Wai in de fuk do you even try to uphold it, if that's what you think about it? You say something like this, which is a good example of critical thinking, and then you come down from your progress with what you say next.

Jesus Christ spoke very much to poor Jews under Roman rule. Many of the rich were oppressive landowners or abusive generals who picked on them. From a different perspective, the materialistic Romans would have a lot of letting go to do if they were to prioritize their value of God over everything else.

You again justify what he's saying. And if your justificiation is valid, then that means that anything Jesus says, since it's all to the Jews anyway (he refuses to teach the Gentiles, of course), should be taken with a grain a salt by anyone else that reads it. (Unless he/she is a Jew.)

You confuse predestination with foreknowledge. God knows some sinners will never repent, along with everything else there is to know in the universe. But he tolerated them for a while (longsuffering) before he had to come down on them in anger (shewing his wrath) and proving his authority to others (making his power known).
"The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished." Numbers 14:8

Please understand that I wouldn't post a Bible verse if I didn't know what it meant. I suppose you prove a good point to everyone reading this: that the Bible is too confusing to be understood plainly.

But, in all seriousness, the term "Vessels of Wrath" is meant as predestination, and it is not incumbent upon his foreknowledge. You can't read that any other way, but I don't care if you do because the Bible is unreliable anyway. At any rate, it just shows that your God makes these people guilty. He's obviously insecure (he is a jealous god, after all) that he comes up with all kinds of ways to show his power to his supposed creations. This verse especially justifies me in thinking he's a dick. Luckily, I don't think he's real, so I'm not at all threatened.

Since when is being a Hindu evil? Or a Muslim? Or an atheist?

You JUST said that those who don't believe in god is evil. What the fuck, Consilius? You're lacking consistency, and this debate is getting tired because of it.

Are we evil if we don't believe in your God? It's a yes or no question. Remember that you and I both decided that morality is subjective to that individual (at least that's what I gathered from previous posts), so now we're asking you what you really think on this matter. Please answer honestly so that we can stop stalling.

The Christians who decided that there were certain writings that were fit for a Bible obviously saw something in them that you don't. Or were they too afraid to question, you know, themselves?
It still remains that God isn't open to materialists who value their stuff over God and others. And Jesus DID speak to Gentiles and tell his disciples to do so (Matthew 8:5-13, 15:21-28), but his main mission was to the Jews because he came to fulfill THEIR covenant.
Yes. The Bible is confusing. That's why people dedicate their lives to interpreting it.
A "vessel of wrath" is someone who is carrying God's anger around with him. These people are guilty because they are sinners.
Jealosuy can be envy of another person or what he or she has (which is a different word in original language), and it can also be righteous jealousy of something that is yours. God is jealous in the sense that he wants to draw all people to himself. They belong to no one else, because they are his creation. Those words are not a mistake. They are there on purpose, and they are in the Bible on purpose.
God shows his power to show his creation that he's still in control in a world where we forget that much too often.

And God is the embodiment of all good, independent of whether or not it is acknowledged.

---

Evil is the absence of good. It is chosen by people who do not want good, which I am equating with God.

Exactly, which renders your previous statement a redundancy.

It's the refusal of not the Judeo-Christian deity, but of good itself that makes one evil.
Does that clear it up?

No, because when you equate good with the Judeo-Christian deity, you once again have a redundancy.

God IS good, and good cannot exist outside of him.
Good exists independent of whether you acknowledge it, and independent of whether or not you acknowledge the Judeo-Christian deity in it.

[Bad Writer]

We're going down some rocky roads, and I'm going to go hands off on some of the things we were discussing.

And God is the embodiment of all good, independent of whether or not it is acknowledged.

How do you justify that? I don't believe that my Ford Mustang was created by God, but I see it as a good thing to have. Thus, it is good, independant of a God. It shows the ingenuity of mankind and how far they have progressed with automotive technology and fuel-cell processing.

A car is not good because there is a god, but is good because certain people think it is. Other people may think it's bad, and that's still independant of a god. You have no proof or justification for making a claim of the goodness of god, and until you do, you will not be heard in the way you want to be.

[Faith No More]

God IS good, and good cannot exist outside of him.
Good exists independent of whether you acknowledge it, and independent of whether or not you acknowledge the Judeo-Christian deity in it.

Prove your claims, please.

[Consilius]

We're going down some rocky roads, and I'm going to go hands off on some of the things we were discussing.

And God is the embodiment of all good, independent of whether or not it is acknowledged.

How do you justify that? I don't believe that my Ford Mustang was created by God, but I see it as a good thing to have. Thus, it is good, independant of a God. It shows the ingenuity of mankind and how far they have progressed with automotive technology and fuel-cell processing.

A car is not good because there is a god, but is good because certain people think it is. Other people may think it's bad, and that's still independant of a god. You have no proof or justification for making a claim of the goodness of god, and until you do, you will not be heard in the way you want to be.

A car can't really be said to be good or bad. It depends on the person. That you picked the right car, that you were privileged enough to be able to afford it, is good in itself. That is invisible and immutable.
Good exists, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it, and whether or not one cares to acknowledge God behind it.

---

God IS good, and good cannot exist outside of him.
Good exists independent of whether you acknowledge it, and independent of whether or not you acknowledge the Judeo-Christian deity in it.

Prove your claims, please.

The nature of good is invisible, personal, immutable, eternal, and universal.

[Silver]

Good exists, whether or not one chooses to acknowledge it, and whether or not one cares to acknowledge God behind it.

Good exists independent of any agent.

These arguments are becoming tiresome, because no one has presented a logical argument proving that morality must be the instruction of a creator.

---

The nature of good is invisible, personal, immutable, eternal, and universal.

So is the Invisible Pink Unicorn, but I do not see you placing your faith in that.

[Consilius]

A good world came from a good Creator.

[Silver]

A good world came from a good Creator.

Stating it does not make it thus.

[Consilius]

I was presenting a point. A summary of three great and widely controversial premises:
1. The world was created.
2. The world is good.
3. Good comes from good.