Faith

[ReliStuPhD]

Scroll back and perhaps your title* (that you randomly intitled yourself too) was not intitled?
* the phd dude

He's on the ropes, I.C. Ad hominems are all he has left. And it only took two days. That was fast.

[David Handeye]

Ok, I'll try to explain, it's a bit difficult to me putting down in another language; once I had a discussion with a priest, I asked him if faith is more important than deeds, he answered to me that deeds are made for faith, you could not make good deeds if you would not already have faith, so that faith is a gift.

Oh, I see. You're talking about the specifically Catholic doctrine known as "General Grace." Got it. I know about that.

You're doing pretty well in English. So what other language is your native one? Spanish, perhaps? I'm guessing, of course.

Thank you. I am Italian, so Italian is my native language.

[raw_thought]

Faith=trust? How can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist?

"Trust" is a fun word that way, isn't it? It can refer to "firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something." This why was led to my response about the "unsophisticated" nature of American preachers (though I have to agree that many are, indeed, unsophisticated). It seems to me an American Christian could say "I have faith [complete trust or confidence in] in Jesus" or "I trust [firmly believe in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of] Jesus" and take those two sentences to be synonymous.

I think it's clear we've got some terminological slippage. Since I've been busy with our other thread, perhaps you could lay out how you're using "faith?"

Scroll back.
Faith= the belief in something without requiring proof.
What you wrote has nothing to do with our debate.
Seriously, answer the question, how can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist? Are you seriously suggesting that conventional Christians do not have faith that God exists?

[raw_thought]

It is unbelievably silly that some people disagree with the statement "conventional Christians believe that one must have faith that God/Jesus exists in order to achieve salvation."

[Immanuel Can]

Thank you. I am Italian, so Italian is my native language.

That would have been my second guess. Your accent as you write is non-French but Mediterranean. But you needn't worry that it's interfering with your English. We understand you well. Welcome to the conversation.

[Immanuel Can]

He's on the ropes, I.C. Ad hominems are all he has left. And it only took two days. That was fast.

I just think we've got him a little concerned.

And I kind of understand. It's so easy to dismiss Christianity when one knows it only as a caricature of its reality. It can be quite unsettling to realize you've been deceiving yourself, after you were sure that you had dispatched it with a little superficial scorn. On the other hand, maybe he's just been sincerely confused about what is entailed by "faith"; and on that assumption, we can afford a little patience, I think.

So I say let's give the poor guy some time to adjust his understanding a bit. He may land on his feet yet.

raw:

Faith= the belief in something without requiring proof.

This is what we were talking about. Your definition is dead wrong. That's why you think Christianity is an easy kill: you don't actually understand it. It looks both simple and wrong to you...and your version is precisely that: simple and wrong.

Seriously, answer the question, how can I trust you if I do not have faith that you exist? Are you seriously suggesting that conventional Christians do not have faith that God exists?

I already answered this one fully for you. Did you perhaps not grasp what I was saying, because your definition of "faith" was so off-kilter? "Without faith it is impossible to please God: for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is the Rewarder of those who seek Him." That's a direct quotation from the Bible, so it could not be a more frank disclosure that yes, Christians must believe that he is -- which is exactly the same thing as saying "have faith that He exists." That will be very obvious to you if you either know even a smidgen of Biblical Greek or if you have a correct English definition of "faith" in mind.

But you're going to have to change your own definition, because, as I say, it's dead wrong. It's going to keep fooling you as long as you hang onto it.

[raw_thought]

Actually, your quote proves my point. According to conventional Christians one must believe (have faith ) that God exists, in order to be saved.
You actually believe that conventional Christians believe that one must have a proof that God exists to have faith that God exists???
You are obviously confused. My proof? Your last post confirms my position.
1. That conventional Christians believe that one must believe that God/Jesus exists to be saved.
2. That conventional Christians believe that one doesnt need a proof (syllogism ) that God exists to believe that God exists.
It is weird that you take my position to prove that my position is incorrect.
What position that I take do you disagree with? 1 or 2?

[raw_thought]

Note that I said that faith doesnt require proof. I did not say that one cannot have faith with proof. Actually, (I hate silly semantic debates) one cannot have faith with proof. It would be a silly misuse of the word "faith" to say, "I have faith that 1+1=2.

[ReliStuPhD]

It is unbelievably silly that some people disagree with the statement "conventional Christians believe that one must have faith that God/Jesus exists in order to achieve salvation."

Could you show us where someone disagreed with this proposition? I scrolled back up, and didn't see it.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay, I'll try once more to explain to you why the semantics here are very, very important.

People use words like "faith," "belief," "proof" and "evidence" in different ways. Some of these ways are actually quite contradictory to each other. For example, we talk about "mathematical proof," which is always absolute, like 2+2=4. But sometimes we use it as well in, say, murder investigations, and say, "What proof do you have that Professor Plum killed Miss Scarlet?" In that case, we are not asking for 100% proof, as in maths, but only what we call "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," which is always less than 100%. But we also say "proof" sometimes when we only mean "evidence," and when the "evidence" required is even lower in reliability, as in "prove you have a chance of winning at chess." So the word "proof" is really tricky unless we define it down to something exact, and agree to stick to it.

I've noted you use it a bunch of different ways, and aren't even conscious that you're fudging your terms. So when you ask, "Do Christians need proof?" we're all sitting here wondering, "What kind of "proof" does he mean this time?"

So let's do this:
Say "proof" only if you mean 100% certainty.
Say "evidence" when you mean "things that count in favour or against a conclusion."
Say "faith" when you mean, "religious belief based on evidence."
Say "believe" when you mean "thinking something is true."
Say "superstition" when you mean "belief based on nothing at all."

So now, what is the question you want to ask?

[Greatest I am]

True, Unitarians/Universalists do not believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. I was raised in that faith. However, the majority of Christians believe that faith in Jesus/God is necessary for salvation.

As a Gnostic Christian, I think that the only thing we need saving from is stupid thinking.

The Unitarians also fly the cross.

Please educate me as to how they view the sacrifice or if they do not believe that God is p**** enough to send his son to die instead of stepping up himself to appease his own wrath against mankind.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

True, Unitarians/Universalists do not believe that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. I was raised in that faith.

By their own principles, Unitarian-Universalists are not Christian (though I do happen to like them quite a bit. It's nice not to have to quibble about this or that faith system). Do Xians attend UU churches? Certainly, but as a "collective," they are perennialists.

However, the majority of Christians believe that faith in Jesus/God is necessary for salvation.

I think you can actually state this in a stronger fashion. A good argument can be made that those who do not believe this are misapplying the label "Christian," so that you could say that "all Christians believe that faith in Jesus/God is necessary for salvation." Of course, this also requires that one accept the notion that a religionist can self-describe incorrectly. Since that's something I try to avoid in my professional work, I'm not going to push this point too hard.

[Immanuel Can]

Since that's something I try to avoid in my professional work, I'm not going to push this point too hard.

I have a similar academic background, and know the PC line on this very well. But even in the secular field of Comparative Religions it's really controversial whether or not "self-identification" should be taken as the cardinal indicator of one's faith. If we are hesitant to question "self-identification," I suspect it's more a product of us having been taught liberal ideological precepts than of anything either empirical or rational.

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to agree with your claim that religionists can indeed self-describe incorrectly. In the case of Christians, I have met a great many people who are more interested in that label as some sort of certification of social respectability or invitation to a social club than as a personal confessional stance. And as an "insider," and on the strength of Biblical verification to say so, I would have not the slightest reservation about saying, "Such people are not Christians at all."

I suspect the same may be said for people in other self-identification groups, but I won't speak for them.

Case in point: "Gnostic Christian" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing. A "gnostic" by definition, does not hold to any theology that could even approximately be called "Christian."

[Greatest I am]

Not so except to those who know little about Gnostic Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02cia ... =PLCBF574D

The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

I have a similar academic background, and know the PC line on this very well. But even in the secular field of Comparative Religions it's really controversial whether or not "self-identification" should be taken as the cardinal indicator of one's faith. If we are hesitant to question "self-identification," I suspect it's more a product of us having been taught liberal ideological precepts than of anything either empirical or rational.

At least for my part, this isn't a sort of "PC" move (though it certainly could be grounded in liberal ideology). Rather, it is a distinction of "religion scholar" over and against "theologian." It pretty much boils down to normatively. I'm uninterested (at least at this point in my career) in determining "this" to be Christian/Islamic/etc and "that" not to be. If someone self-identifies as an Christian (e.g. a Mormon), I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of that self-identification and spelling it out rather than determining whether it's actually correct (e.g. Not "Is ISIL Islamic" but "How does ISIL justify their claim to be Islamic?"). That said, this is a professional decision and I'm not convinced it'll be a "forever after" guideline (and I could certainly go so far as to say something like "ISIL is not Islamic. They're Christian." if they were to make a particular set of claims).

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to agree with your claim that religionists can indeed self-describe incorrectly. In the case of Christians, I have met a great many people who are more interested in that label as some sort of certification of social respectability or invitation to a social club than as a personal confessional stance. And as an "insider," and on the strength of Biblical verification to say so, I would have not the slightest reservation about saying, "Such people are not Christians at all."

I wouldn't appeal to the same verification you do, but I do acknowledge that my awareness of incorrect self-description is what keeps me from stating the above as "'forever-after' guidelines."

Case in point: "Gnostic Christian" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing. A "gnostic" by definition, does not hold to any theology that could even approximately be called "Christian."

It's been too long since I dove into this area, so I'll just nod politely.