by MDS 46 Replies latest watchtower bible
MDS,
I called into question the validity of the Hebrew scriptures on a previous post that you ignored. Will you please address that? Can't have a further conversation about answering your questions scripturally until you prove the accuracy and legitimacy of the "old testament".
Tom
Hi. This all came up pretty fast.
Hey MDS, I must confess that I did not read your original post.
Can you condense it into something a bit smaller.
That would be much appreciated.
Thanks!
Whew! What long posts.
MDS:
I scanned some of your posts. They reminded me of some of the talks at the assemblies. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Of course, a religious person's response is that one must have faith (but only in THEIR interpretation, of course). Which makes one wonder whether or not faith is really from God. All devout religious people have faith, and yet few of them totally agree on anything. So where does all of that "misled" faith come from? --AhHah
Not all religious people insist on THEIR interpretation of God and his will. To group all religious persons in such a way is stereotyping. It’s like saying all who leave the WTS are evil.
Faith can and does come in many forms, including the faith that comes from God. You can have faith in a person and this does not mean that it is necessarily from God OR from Satan. You can have faith in a system and the same applies also. You can have faith in your own ability and…ditto. You are also confusing faith with doctrines and belief systems. What requires that all who have faith agree on everything? James said that the demons believed in God and shuddered. Their religious persuasion was certainly different from that of James’ but he nonetheless credited them with belief in God.
‘Misled’ faith comes from many sources, not all necessarily from Satan. Faith, by its very nature and definition is BELIEF and not PROOF. Once something is proven to exist, for instance, no faith is required for its acceptance.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Edited by - Frenchy on 21 November 2000 16:34:51
Frenchy,
Faith can and does come in many forms, including the faith that comes from God. You can have faith in a person and this does not mean that it is necessarily from God OR from Satan. You can have faith in a system and the same applies also. You can have faith in your own ability and…ditto. You are also confusing faith with doctrines and belief systems. What requires that all who have faith agree on everything? James said that the demons believed in God and shuddered. Their religious persuasion was certainly different from that of James’ but he nonetheless credited them with belief in God.
I am not confusing anything. Do you really think that I am not aware of the obvious you stated above?
My post was in the context of the fallacy of circular reasonings to attempt to validate faith in a belief. Did you read the link? Religious persons are often content to have faith because someone said that God told them something.
More to the point for you: Theo has strong faith that God is a trinity. You have strong faith that God is not a trinity, and that Jesus is not God. You both claim that your faith comes from God, to use your words. These faiths (supposedly in the same God, and supposedly both based on the Bible) are by definition contradictory. If one of you is wrong, then what does that imply about the other's faith? Did God himself inspire contradictory faiths in the two of you? If not, where did the "mistaken" faith come from? The usual Christian answer is that the mistaken faith comes from Satan, the Great Deceiver, who keeps "transforming himself into an angel of light that he might blind the minds of the unbelievers". So, Frenchy, what do you believe is the real source of Theo's faith in the trinity? Is it from the one true God, the Creator of the universe? If not, then why does Theo believe it so strongly?
Obviously, faith in itself is not proof of the validity of a belief. Therefore, it is meaningless when a religious person attempts to justify a belief that they cannot explain by saying "You must have faith to believe", as though that is all that need be said for someone else to accept their belief and put their faith in it also.
Edited by - AhHah on 21 November 2000 19:16:45
AhHah:
I read the link. I’ve seen this thing before.
Theo has strong faith that God is a trinity. You have strong faith that God is not a trinity, and that Jesus is not God. You both claim that your faith comes from God, to use your words.
You say that you are not confusing anything so perhaps it’s just me who isn’t understanding what you are saying. I associate my belief in God with the word ‘faith’. I say first of all that I have faith that there is a God. Then I say that I have faith IN God. I would not describe my belief as to the nature of God with the word ‘faith’. Nor did I never make the claim that my belief as to the nature of God “comes from God” as you are claiming I have done. You say that Theo ‘has a strong faith that God is a trinity’. I don’t know whether this is so or not since I have not seen that expression used by Theo. I don’t recall Theo claiming that (if this indeed is the case) this ‘faith’ is from God.
These faiths (supposedly in the same God, and supposedly both based on the Bible) are by definition contradictory. If one of you is wrong, then what does that imply about the other's faith?
I should think that it’s quite evident that we cannot both be correct. To be wrong about a particular belief does not negate one's faith.
Did God himself inspire contradictory faiths in the two of you? If not, where did the "mistaken" faith come from?
I don’t recall either of us claiming inspiration on this subject. Where are you getting this? Jesus’ apostles were often confused on numerous issues. Was God or Jesus feeding them conflicting information? No, they simply misunderstood what Jesus said. That does not mean that God caused that misunderstanding nor does it mean that Satan planted that explicit thought in their minds. It was simply human error. It’s possible to misunderstand Scripture, alas, its so very difficult to understand it at all!
So, Frenchy, what do you believe is the real source of Theo's faith in the trinity? Is it from the one true God, the Creator of the universe? If not, then why does Theo believe it so strongly?
Theo’s belief in the trinity comes not from divine revelation anymore than my belief of the nature of God. We have both studied the issue, pro and con. We have emerged each with his own viewpoint of this issue. Both of us still have faith in God. We are at odds only on the matter his nature. In practical terms it makes no difference as to which one of us is correct as far as how we pray and how we conduct ourselves with God and with our fellow man.
Obviously, faith in itself is not proof of the validity of a belief.
Whoever said it was? It would be ridiculous to think so. But remember this, that once a belief is validated then it is no longer faith. Faith deals with things that are as yet unseen and thus unverified.
Therefore, it is meaningless when a religious person attempts to justify a belief that they cannot explain by saying "You must have faith to believe", as though that is all that need be said for someone else to accept their belief and put their faith in it also.
That’s right. Totally meaningless. You cannot legislate faith. You cannot simply hand it to someone. You cannot just insist that one exercise faith. Understand that not all ‘religious people’ are out to shove their beliefs on others.
You said: “Of course, a religious person's response is that one must have faith (but only in THEIR interpretation, of course).” That is not an accurate statement. Not all ‘religious persons’ insist that their interpretation is the only one. Your statement would cast all ‘religious persons’ in the same lot on this issue and that is simply not so.
On this trinity business, do I believe that I am right and that Theo is wrong? Yes. Does my belief make it so? No. Is it possible that I am wrong? Yes. Would I admit it if I became convinced that I was wrong? Yes. Would my being wrong on this issue destroy my faith in God? No. Beliefs and doctrines are not necessarily faith.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
Edited by - Frenchy on 21 November 2000 22:4:28
Frenchy,
“Of course, a religious person's response is that one must have faith (but only in THEIR interpretation, of course).” AhHah -- That is not an accurate statement. Not all ‘religious persons’ insist that their interpretation is the only one. Your statement would cast all ‘religious persons’ in the same lot on this issue and that is simply not so.
My original post was not to you, and it was not intended to be an indictment of every single religious person that has ever walked the planet. It is a generalization, and it is a valid one. That there are exceptions should go without needing to be stated.
You seem to try to avoid the larger, obvious issue that I raised - that of contradictory faiths, by looking for loopholes in my statements. That is a consistent pattern in your attempts to debate issues on this forum.
So, Frenchy, what do you believe is the real source of Theo's faith in the trinity?
On this trinity business, do I believe that I am right and that Theo is wrong? Yes. Does my belief make it so? No. Is it possible that I am wrong? Yes. Would I admit it if I became convinced that I was wrong? Yes. Would my being wrong on this issue destroy my faith in God? No. Beliefs and doctrines are not necessarily faith.
The fact that you would still have faith that God exists should you accept the trinity was not even the question that I raised. The question is specifically about where the faith IN THE DOCTRINE IN QUESTION comes from. I believe that question was pretty clear. The question was whether contradictory faiths (such as in the trinity doctrine) should be understood by the individuals to be from God, a manifestation of God's spirit upon them, since faith is described as a fruitage of God's spirit in the Bible. Would God's spirit be the source of faith in contradictory beliefs in different persons?
That is a potentially very troubling question to persons of faith and that is the reason that I raised the question. Is that why you have avoided it?
If you are going to debate my posts, why not try to understand and stick with the subject of the post instead of trying to discredit my questions and statements with your obfuscations?
Why must you resort to these sorts of tedious responses filled with misdirection? Why not deal head on with the real issues when you choose to respond?
Why all the migrating posts?
This thread started over at "divinity of Jesus as the Christ" and got all the way over here to MDS' post????
Has this argument ended?
Dear Theo,
I appears that certain differences in viewpoint between AhHah and myself became personal. The arguments were no longer about issues but rather became personal affronts. There is no point in continuing something like that inasmuch as it is non productive for either party and soon becomes tiresome to those that are reading the posts. I made a comment to AhHah about my feelings on the matter on a thread on a forum that is little used. I invited him to respond if he wished. I checked it few times but I have never seen a reply from him. It is, of course, his privilege to not answer and I certainly do not wish to perpetuate what had become something very distasteful to all here.
I regret very much that it came to that.
-Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it-
From MDS:
But understand this, I'm not going anywhere, till I say so...I'll decide when it is time for me to leave...okay?
Don't you think Simon might get the final say in that?lol
