Undecided

[Doveaman]

That evolution happens IS a fact. The "theory of evolution" is a theory of WHY it happens. That's how science works. It's a fact that apples fall. The "theory of gravity" is a theory of why apples fall.

And there can be many different theories of gravity, but even if they are all wrong this doesn't change the fact that apples fall.

Understanding evolution is not mutually exclusive with being a Christian.

I agree.

 

[Doveaman]

No, yours is. This is why it's fun to discuss religion. It's all about interpretations. =)

Yep. You're definitely wrong.

It can. Again, this is why religious discussions are so colorful. I've gotten about five different definitions of 'faith' in this thread alone. But hey! We know YOUR interpretation is the right, am I right?

I'm not sure they are different definitions, as much as different directions, or explorations of that faith.

Precisely.

I really think sandwiches didn't know how to respond to that post #103 and simply dodged it.

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't mind talking about this but I don't like arguing semantics, is all. Now, as far as evidence, I don't think I ever saw any. Otherwise, I probably would've stayed a believer. What kind of evidence is there to validate a faith in something you can't see, hear, touch, taste, or smell?

that is what we have been talking about, the things you are calling semantics but are in reality definitions...let's look at Gal 5 to begin with, maybe showing it to you this way will help it to make more sense... 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

Basically, this passage tells us that the evidence of the HS is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control

If we then look at each of these things in depth, we find the intended meaning of each word/idea...for example, my favorite is love and just happens to be the first listed...the short version of love is to put others above self, I Cor.13 tells us what that looks like

So let's look at I Cor. 13...love is patient...a simple word study shows us that patience here is a perseverance, and endurance even in the face of distress. In Christ, it would look like His loving us even when we are considered His enemy. He waits for us with a calm and determination that eventually, we will see Him.

Love is kind...kind being a useful kindness, a kindness that does something. So we don't get very far before we see that love is both an emotion/attitude (patience) and an action (kindness) but this kindness isn't just a smile, or kind word, it's doing something, going into the depths of the human condition and changing situations so that love can transform lives.

Love does not envy...it doesn't only not envy, but it rejoices with those who have what we want. There is no jealousy, it holds it's tongue and has real joy even when we feel like we have been done wrong.

And so forth and so on. The things listed in the fruit of the spirit are evidences of the supernatural variety. That is why they are evidence of the HS, because they are not just your ordinary everyday, I'm a happy person, I'm a content person, I love people, it goes far beyond.

Now this does not mean that one cannot be saved without these evidences, in fact, someone else brought up the idea of not really being saved. I'm not sure that is acceptable according to scripture. John 3:16 says that simple belief is necessary for salvation...I have no reason to question that. But real faith (which is different than belief) is what we are talking about and faith brings with it the HS in fact, faith comes from the HS. It brings with it a supernatural evidence when it is directed at God.

Thus the questions that I have been asking you...does that help you to see the significance of the "semantics" you don't like. It really isn't about semantics as much as it is about translations of the words we accept as meaning a certain thing. Meaning is important to understanding whether or not, or even what evidence one is seeing.

 

[Doveaman]

No, yours is. This is why it's fun to discuss religion. It's all about interpretations. =)

Yep. You're definitely wrong.

It can. Again, this is why religious discussions are so colorful. I've gotten about five different definitions of 'faith' in this thread alone. But hey! We know YOUR interpretation is the right, am I right?

Nice dodge. But I am not buying it.

Let's assume, for argument sake, that my definition in post #103 is a correct definition of faith, what would your response be, did you have such a faith relationship with God?

 

[Doveaman]

Dang! You just said one thing and then quoted the Bible contradicting what you just said.

Jesse, a paranoid schizophrenic in a mental hospital where I once worked, had just such faith that he was Jesus of Nazareth.

There is an obvious comment about this that would undoubtedly draw the ire of the mods.

Or perhaps he never had it. Jesse, on meds, left the hospital and was able to live on his own. Does that mean he lost his faith?

Was Jesse, when he believed himself to be Jesus of Nazareth, a Christian? He certainly had faith in himself at one time. Are anti-psychotic drugs tools of the devil?

You are making me feel like I'm making a lot of sense. Thanks for you support.

 

[razzelflabben]

Precisely.

I really think sandwiches didn't know how to respond to that post #103 and simply dodged it.

and I responded, so what is your argument against my response? Or do you think you just need to repeat your argument as if it is solid?

 

[Doveaman]

and I responded, so what is your argument against my response? Or do you think you just need to repeat your argument as if it is solid?

Huh?!!

I don't have a problem with your response. Where did you get that idea? And, yes, my argument is solid, and so is yours.

 

[razzelflabben]

Huh?!!

I don't have a problem with your response. Where did you get that idea? And, yes, my argument is solid, and so is yours.

sorry, my bad, I was doing to many things at once, I was responding to something else altogether and got some wires crossed. My apology

 

[Doveaman]

sorry, my bad, I was doing to many things at once, I was responding to something else altogether and got some wires crossed. My apology

That's OK. No love lost.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's OK. No love lost.

Honestly, I'm surprised I don't do it more often all things considered, especially since I am only now remembering things again, I have been very preoccupied with grief of late. I am truly sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[sandwiches]

Nice dodge. But I am not buying it.

Let's assume, for argument sake, that my definition in post #103 is a correct definition of faith, what would your response be, did you have such a faith relationship with God?

If your definition of 'faith' and interpretation of the Bible were correct, I'd say 'I didn't have that kind of relationship with God. Therefore, you're right; I didn't have real faith.'

What was the point of that hypothetical situation? If I agreed that you're correct, then I'd agree with you! Obviously.

 

[razzelflabben]

If your definition of 'faith' and interpretation of the Bible were correct, I'd say 'I didn't have that kind of relationship with God. Therefore, you're right; I didn't have real faith.'

What was the point of that hypothetical situation? If I agreed that you're correct, then I'd agree with you! Obviously.

I'm gonna post this here, it isn't really as much about your discussion with doveaman, as it is just a statement....It is actually common place for people to blame God for what is not God's at all. If you had no "faith" but blame God for not revealing Himself, how is the blame God's? Isn't the blame eyes to see not whether or not the evidence was presented? Just a thought for what it's worth

 

[Lithographica]

I'm gonna post this here, it isn't really as much about your discussion with doveaman, as it is just a statement....It is actually common place for people to blame God for what is not God's at all. If you had no "faith" but blame God for not revealing Himself, how is the blame God's? Isn't the blame eyes to see not whether or not the evidence was presented? Just a thought for what it's worth

That's if and only if doveaman's definition is correct. Doesn't this edge close to calling someone not a Christian? The arguments seem to parallel. Argument 1: If someone is not a Christian in the way that I am a Christian, he or she is not a Christian. Argument 2: If someone does not have faith the way that I have faith, he or she does not have faith. He's self identified as having been a faithful Christian, there's no more reason to question his history than there is to question your own.

 

[Doveaman]

Honestly, I'm surprised I don't do it more often all things considered, especially since I am only now remembering things again, I have been very preoccupied with grief of late. I am truly sorry if I offended anyone.

Well, I felt you misunderstood me so there was no reason for me to be offended.

Sorry about your loss, and I really do admire your faith to cope. You no doubt have an experience that God can use as a source of encouragement to others. You are certainly an encouragement to me.

 

[Doveaman]

If your definition of 'faith' and interpretation of the Bible were correct, I'd say 'I didn't have that kind of relationship with God. Therefore, you're right; I didn't have real faith.'

Any kind of Spirit led relationship with God can be considered faith, it's just that we relate to God at different levels so faith matures at different levels for each one of us. If you had any kind of Spirit led relationship with God at all then you would have had faith. But I guess it would be strange for you to conclude you had such a faith relationship with God since you, an atheist, don't believe God ever existed.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's if and only if doveaman's definition is correct. Doesn't this edge close to calling someone not a Christian?

How? Scripture says that we are saved if we believe, not if we have faith...

The arguments seem to parallel. Argument 1: If someone is not a Christian in the way that I am a Christian, he or she is not a Christian.

that's a new on to me....

Argument 2: If someone does not have faith the way that I have faith, he or she does not have faith. He's self identified as having been a faithful Christian, there's no more reason to question his history than there is to question your own.

again, a new one to me...

 

[Doveaman]

That's if and only if doveaman's definition is correct. Doesn't this edge close to calling someone not a Christian? The arguments seem to parallel. Argument 1: If someone is not a Christian in the way that I am a Christian, he or she is not a Christian. Argument 2: If someone does not have faith the way that I have faith, he or she does not have faith. He's self identified as having been a faithful Christian, there's no more reason to question his history than there is to question your own.

There is only one definition of the Christian faith and that's the way the Bible defines it. This Biblical definition has broad application and can be explored from different directions, which is what we have done, and we offered a number of scriptures in support of this Biblical definition of faith.

sandwiches' definition, on the other hand, is supported by a dictionary and a flawed application of a single scripture. There is no comparison.

sandwiches' own explanation here suggests that he was not relying on Christian faith, when he said:

When I finally realized that my feeling of certain knowledge was definitely based on nothing but hopes and beliefs. I started asking myself why I believed the things I did. I couldn't find a reasonable explanation other than fear of hell and wanting to go to heaven.

By his own admission, sandwiches was led by fear and not by faith. Many professed Christians are led by that same fear, too, and not by faith.

 

[Doveaman]

Scripture says that we are saved if we believe

You are correct; we will only experience this free gift of salvation when we believe it is ours to freely receive and accept it. I do believe that the whole world has already been saved/reconciled through Christ’ death, but they just don’t know it yet, and it’s our job to let them know through the preaching of the gospel. That’s why the gospel is considered good news. It is good news because it is a message about what Christ has already freely done to save/reconcile the whole world.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation...Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. - 2 Cor 5:18-19, 1 John 2:1-2.

 

[razzelflabben]

There is only one definition of the Christian faith and that's the way the Bible defines it. This Biblical definition has broad application and can be explored from different directions, which is what we have done, and we offered a number of scriptures in support of this Biblical definition of faith.

sandwiches' definition, on the other hand, is supported by a dictionary and a flawed application of a single scripture. There is no comparison.

sandwiches' own explanation here suggests that he was not relying on Christian faith, when he said:By his own admission, sandwiches was led by fear and not by faith. Many professed Christians are led by that same fear, too, and not by faith.

Fear is one method used to convert people to Christ, and yet scriptures says that perfect love (which is God by the way) casts out all fear...which begs the question, if you are a 'christian' by fear, what is it you really believe in????

 

[razzelflabben]

You are correct; we will only experience this free gift of salvation when we believe it is ours to freely receive and accept it. I do believe that the whole world has already been saved/reconciled through Christ’ death, but they just don’t know it yet, and it’s our job to let them know through the preaching of the gospel. That’s why the gospel is considered good news. It is good news because it is a message about what Christ has already freely done to save/reconcile the whole world.

All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation...Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. - 2 Cor 5:18-19, 1 John 2:1-2.

I have met so many weird eggs on this forum, that I won't take anything for granted. If I understand what you are saying, bravo...if it's some weird theology that is only understandable when the idea is pushed and manipulated but sounds good on the surface, I can't go along with it, I'll go with the first right now, since so far you sound pretty solid and grounded in scripture....