NT Writers

[POI]

For the context of this discussion, let's roll with the definition of faith to mean -- "to trust in, or to apply hope in anyways, despite inference(s) to the contrary. " Since belief does not seem to be a choice, as I cannot simply chose to believe in fairies without proper demonstration, the term faith looks to be the work-around.

Further, many will also argue faith in Jesus is necessary, because all humans fall short. But if this is THE case, then 'morals' also look to become superfluous and/or irrelevant. Which then looks to be contradictory and/or illogical, as the NT expresses the need to follow a certain 'moral' code....

For debate: Were the NT writer(s) savvy enough to recognize that many would read this collection of writings and not believe -- (due to contradiction and/or illogic)? Hence, the workaround term faith was implemented?

[TRANSPONDER]

1) You are missing my point in this thread... I cannot simply "will" myself to believe without already being convinced by evidence. Just like you cannot simply 'will' yourself to believe in something for which you are not convinced about.

2) I'm simply saying the Bible gives readers a (do's and don'ts) list.

3) We all know your position by now 1213. If something in the Bible "looks" to be wrong, the reader is mistaken. The Bible is flawless.

***********************

Now can we explore the topic I created?....

The objective of this topic is to explore IF the NT authors were aware that these storylines are not very believable for many. Hence, the emphasis of the term faith. Which-is-to-mean, for many, "hope for it anyways, despite not being able to see it".

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.
2) Interesting, I see it differently. I think Bible rather gives a be and don't be list.

I think you understand the meaning of faith wrongly. It is about being faithful, loyal to God. Even a person who doesn't believe God, can be loyal to Him by keeping His word.

Also, I think Bible is not really about believing, but more about right understanding. Believing is not useful, if you are evil and unrighteous.

No, no, no; and Yes, yes yes

Belief, in a religion, in a political dogma, in a crazy cult; can be evil (harmful, divisive, dangerous) and Faith is not in itself a good thing; it depends. But religion peddles the idea that Faith is a virtue - but only if applied to the right religion. But we have seen that yours is personal and isn't even mainstream Christianity.

Yes, yes yes, one can be moral (Righteous), but no, no no, it is an invalid and faithbased assumption that this is all down to and owed to a god, and a religion - specific god, too.

This is the faithbased fallacy that you and every other God - apologist does and none of you can see it. But it is the basic flaw and fallacy in Religious apologetics that invalidates just about every argument you make right from the start; but, just as Theists can never seen m to understand simple concepts like the way the burden of proof works, or the validity of the materialist default, they can never seem to grasp the basic fallacy of the a priori god -faith -claim; never.

[1213]

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.

False. Please try and convince yourself that Santa Claus exists. You can't.

What would prevent me?

...(Faith) is synonymous with (righteousness), ala Romans 3.

Not in the Bible. Faith is something righteous has, but they are not the same.

[TRANSPONDER]

1) I can convince myself to believe things, if I want so.

False. Please try and convince yourself that Santa Claus exists. You can't.

What would prevent me?

...(Faith) is synonymous with (righteousness), ala Romans 3.

Not in the Bible. Faith is something righteous has, but they are not the same.

Your own lack of crediting the claim would prevent you. You saw through Santa when you were a kid (or I [presume you did, like the majority of other kids) and you cannot now Make yourself believe in Santa. Or I suppose your mind works the same as others, so long as Biblefaith isn't involved.

As POI says - try to talk yourself into Santa - faith. Try to honestly post 'I believe in Santa'. We could all do with a laugh.

No, I am sure that Faith is what is needed before one can become righteous ...at least in Christian doctrine. In mine, a non- Christian can be just as righteous as a god - apologist, and probably less prone to denial and fiddling.

The elephant in the room we can all see but you, it seems, is that God (or Jesus, rather) - Faith is what is needed to make a person worthy of being saved, or that is mainstream Christian doctrine - Jesusfaith saves, works does not; works can only lose you forgiveness and salvation unless you put on some fake public weeping and a dollar in the tin. Don't know why they don't do sale of indulgencies, like the old papacy did. Now they just cover up any crimes.

I'll give you this; you see correctly that good depends on what Ought to be the basis for being a moral person ("Righteousness") but you fail when you try to make out that the best way to do that is by following God's Law as revised by Pauline Christianity. It is not. And that you have a vague inkling that one can be salvation - grade righteous in any religion or none, but you seem to have trouble in seeing other religions as being equally valid as Christianity.

But then (as usual) it is not about getting you to admit any point, or even showing up how wretched Bible apologetics can be (and you do a stellar job of that, old mate ) but it is doing what we - yall are here for; to discuss and debate and show or even Shew, who has the better case,. The only Problem, which it always was, is that we get mere handfuls of people reading it, when someone only has to post a video of some erbot tripping over a rake to get a million views.

Well, we can only soldier on, and do our best.

[POI]

What would prevent me?

I'm willing to bet you do not currently believe in a Santa Claus. Not already being convinced will prevent you from believing. You cannot simply "will" a belief in Santa Claus without evidence. If you think you can, please do so. Please currently make yourself believe Santa Claus is real without first being presented and convinced by evidence. I'm pretty sure you cannot.

This is why I'm exploring this idea. Some will not be convinced, because they will find the evidence lacking, or even non-existent. Hence, the NT writers were crafty enough to place forward the importance of 'faith'. Faith does the heavy lifting. Or, hope and/or trust in something despite evidence to the contrary. Whether it be Santa Claus or an invisible Jesus...

[1213]

I'm willing to bet you do not currently believe in a Santa Claus. Not already being convinced will prevent you from believing. You cannot simply "will" a belief in Santa Claus without evidence. If you think you can, please do so. ...

I don't want to do so, because no good reason to do so.

This is why I'm exploring this idea. Some will not be convinced, because they will find the evidence lacking, or even non-existent. Hence, the NT writers were crafty enough to place forward the importance of 'faith'. Faith does the heavy lifting. Or, hope and/or trust in something despite evidence to the contrary. Whether it be Santa Claus or an invisible Jesus...

To me the disturbing thing is that people say no evidence for God and therefore don't believe, but then believe other things without any good evidence, like for example evolution theory and that life just spontaneously appeared. To me it seems very hypocrite, illogical and dishonest.

I think you have wrong meaning for the faith.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm willing to bet you do not currently believe in a Santa Claus. Not already being convinced will prevent you from believing. You cannot simply "will" a belief in Santa Claus without evidence. If you think you can, please do so. ...

I don't want to do so, because no good reason to do so.

This is why I'm exploring this idea. Some will not be convinced, because they will find the evidence lacking, or even non-existent. Hence, the NT writers were crafty enough to place forward the importance of 'faith'. Faith does the heavy lifting. Or, hope and/or trust in something despite evidence to the contrary. Whether it be Santa Claus or an invisible Jesus...

To me the disturbing thing is that people say no evidence for God and therefore don't believe, but then believe other things without any good evidence, like for example evolution theory and that life just spontaneously appeared. To me it seems very hypocrite, illogical and dishonest.

I think you have wrong meaning for the faith.

I am smiling and shaking my head, as this is such terrible apologetics; denial in fact. Utter denial. No good reason to believe in Santa, because nobody does after age 7 maybe? But belief in God because everyone around you does? But not on the evidence, but Theism or Christianity fiddles the evidence.

And you have had evolution demonstrated. We debated the cetan sequence and you fought it all the way down to the 'scrapeadraw' excuse that God made the whales with hand bones in the flippers because they work better.
I countered with sharkfins which are not hand bones because sharks didn't evolve from land critters. They do not breathe air like whales.
You dropped the debate there because you had nowhere to go, and yet here you are saying 'no good evidence' and making the irrelevant appeal to abiogenesis (thanks, I just posted on that ) and then have the sauce to accuse someone or some people of seeming 'very hypocrite, illogical and dishonest'.

Hoo boy. terrible, terrible, apologetics, denial and not remembering anything. I do, the cetan sequence, the resurrection discussion, Genesis and all the other discussions, which you purport to not recall or you deny.

Folks, I want to say, This is Maga, and scratch a Maga believer and you will - yall find a Christian fundamentalist and probably YE creationist too, and they evolved through the Tea party when Creationist science -denial was funded by the fossil fuel companies that wanted to make climate change denial a part of the dogma (which it is) and through Sarah Palin to politics.

Just sayin' this is as clear an evolutionary path as the cetan sequence, and yet few or none seem to realise it, any more than they realise that Jesus has to be Barrabbas.

But back to our moutons, I love you to pieces 1213 old pal, as you are a regular poster, a sterling debator and a lot of fun, but your apologetics, are terrible, terrible, uninformed, denialist and threaten to rot my brain, so god knows what it does to yours. And have a very nice week

[POI]

I'm willing to bet you do not currently believe in a Santa Claus. Not already being convinced will prevent you from believing. You cannot simply "will" a belief in Santa Claus without evidence. If you think you can, please do so. ...

I don't want to do so, because no good reason to do so.

Correct. There IS no good reason to believe in Santa. Hence, you cannot believe. You cannot make yourself believe without reason(s). This is exactly why I rolled out this topic. Many feel there is no good reason to believe in the Bible God. Hence, maybe the reason NT writers created a loophole. Meaning, to instill faith anyways. Or, in your case here, trust anyways, despite reason(s) to the contrary. A crappy way to accomplish this task is by presenting the concept of Pascal's Wager. (i.e.) Apply faith just in case. -- You have little to lose and everything to gain. Or, apply faith, for fear of "eternal torment" as the alternative. Which, like the Bible God being unfounded, so is the concept of eternal torment/hell/other.

We no longer believe in Santa, because as adults, we stop believing in childish things. But in reality, Santa Claus is no more illogical to drop belief in, versus the "Bible God". Both Santa and Jesus claim to be agencies who have the ability to judge all, based upon one's deeds. They also both reward the 'good' and punish the 'bad'. They are both also said to have other supernatural attributes.

To me the disturbing thing is that people say no evidence for God and therefore don't believe, but then believe other things without any good evidence, like for example evolution theory and that life just spontaneously appeared. To me it seems very hypocrite, illogical and dishonest.

I think you have wrong meaning for the faith.

Then YOU should be consistent. If you truly believe there is no good evidence to believe in evolutionary biology and/or abiogenesis, then you should also not believe in the Bible god. And if you state there are reason(s) to believe in the Bible God, then you no longer need any faith, which is the antithesis of what the Bible says to have. If you are convinced by reason(s), then you no longer need hope or trust.

Further, if evolutionary biology and abiogenesis were to be demonstrated false, this does not make the Bible true. It's not an (either/or) proposition. A matter of fact, my disbelief in the claims from the Bible hardly ever, if at all, reference evolutionary biology and/or abiogenesis.

Further still, many theists accept both evolution and Christianity. Hence, maybe they are more consistent than you.

And last, my representation of the term faith mirrors the Bible's representation. (i.e.):

Bible: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see"
POI: "Hope/trust despite no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary."

[1213]

...This is exactly why I rolled out this topic. Many feel there is no good reason to believe in the Bible God. Hence, maybe the reason NT writers created a loophole. Meaning, to instill faith anyways. Or, in your case here, trust anyways, despite reason(s) to the contrary. A crappy way to accomplish this task is by presenting the concept of Pascal's Wager. (i.e.) Apply faith just in case. -- You have little to lose and everything to gain. Or, apply faith, for fear of "eternal torment" as the alternative. Which, like the Bible God being unfounded, so is the concept of eternal torment/hell/other.

I think the existence of life and the Bible are good reasons to believe. And there is no good reason not to believe that God is real.

I think it would be good to understand, in Biblical point of view eternal life is promised only for righteous. it is a gift for them that cannot be earned. If someone tries to be faithful or believer to earn eternal life, he is very likely not righteous.

If you truly believe there is no good evidence to believe in evolutionary biology and/or abiogenesis, then you should also not believe in the Bible god.

Why? I think there are good reasons to believe in Bible God.

And if you state there are reason(s) to believe in the Bible God, then you no longer need any faith, which is the antithesis of what the Bible says to have. If you are convinced by reason(s), then you no longer need hope or trust.

In Biblical point of view faith means loyalty to God. One can be loyal, even if he believes, or knows God is real.

And last, my representation of the term faith mirrors the Bible's representation. (i.e.):

Bible: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see"
POI: "Hope/trust despite no evidence, or even evidence to the contrary."

I think best way to understand what that means is the example of Noah. Noah got the message from God that there will come a great flood. And even though he didn't see the flood yet, he trusted that the message is true and was loyal (faithful) to God and did the Ark.

By faith, Noah, being warned about things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house, through which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
Heb. 11:7

Similarly I think Christians should trust to God and be loyal to Him.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, we goddless see no good reason to believe the Bible. The story of Noah cannot be taken seriously. Ok I get it that you use it as an illustration of Righteousness (doing what God says). But then, no wonder they wouldn't accept Jesus, as he said to do something other than what God said and said that was what God had said.

This wasn't like God talking to Abraham, or Noah or Moses; this was some dude saying 'God said this, but I now tell you something different'.'

So I get you are talking about what You believe and why it fits with the NT and I get that. But really, arguing about whether one is following the word of the Bible requires that the Bible be considered worth following in the first place.

[POI]

I think the existence of life and the Bible are good reasons to believe.

By using your logic, ANY proposed god or gods can be believed to be real. For instance, the Rig Veda is just as valid for the existence of Shiva. Or Dianetics can be proof for the existence of Xenu. But of course, you simply hand-wave those other god propositions away, instead to favor the one you were raised within

I think it would be good to understand, in Biblical point of view eternal life is promised only for righteous. it is a gift for them that cannot be earned. If someone tries to be faithful or believer to earn eternal life, he is very likely not righteous.

I disagree. The following receipts attest to believing in him without evidence. Even though you cannot see him, you must still have faith he is there. (i.e.):

2 Corinthians 5:7 - For we walk by faith, not by sight.
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

I think the Bible writers knew the evidence is lacking. Hence, to raise converts, the invention of faith was placed forward. Which is why skeptics are always presented with the argument of Pascal's Wager by believers. If the Bible God's existence was this obvious, Pascal's Wager would not exist as an argument to be presented

Why? I think there are good reasons to believe in Bible God.

You have yet to list any good reason(s). Only bad ones. Sorry.

In Biblical point of view faith means loyalty to God. One can be loyal, even if he believes, or knows God is real.

Nope. It means having faith despite not being able to detect him.