Activism Change

What does God require?

Question:

Oops.  Here is the original post: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Rick asks: The scriptures say, "our righteous acts are like filthy rags."  (Isaiah 64:6).  How will you prove your faith, with a pile of "filthy rags"?  Do you really think that is acceptable to God? First of all, St. Paul was speaking of the mundane practices of the Jews, "works of the Torah". Secondly,he was arguing toward those who thought they could be saved by their own works, not good works done in the name of Jesus. He did not mean to express that a man can be saved by faith only. And if you want to get really confused, St. Paul says somewhere that we are saved by hope. Rom8:24 BAM

Isn’t faith, hope, and trust all pretty much the same thing? Hope, trust and faith are only as good as what they hope, trust, and have faith  in.  If you trust something that is weak and imperfect, you will be let down.  Trust only in God, and you will never be let down. Man’s works are imperfect, how can I trust them to save me?  On the other hand,  Jesus’ works are perfect.  Jesus will never let us down. Rick

Response:

gentle says: The reason the reformers accepted just the scriptures is because the Reformation followed the Renaissance, and the Renaissance had and was discrediting things like oral tradition as credible evidence of what it says.

No, no. They didn’t just accept the scriptures. They insisted upon their  private translations and interpretations of the scriptures. They also took it  upon themselves to cavalierly throw out seven books of the Septuagint, the  Catholic Bible, The Vulgate, the Gutenberg Bible and the Orthodox Bible, in  favor of the Jewish scriptures canonized by an anti-Christian Jewish council  held 50 years after Christ’s ascension. In fact, they ignored the Septaugint  altogether, which had much more credibility than the Jewish scriptures. It  only takes a drop of poison to spoil a drink, and that’s what they did. If  Luther could have pulled it off, he would have thrown out James as well. They also played tricks with words. For instance: In Gen 31:19, Rebecca steals her fathers "terafim". The Protestants translate this as  "images". (i.e., forbidden by the first commandment). However in Hosea 3, the  prophet foretells the lamentable state of the Isrealites, saying they will be  long without King, Priest, Sacrifice, Altar, Ephod or Terafim. This indicates  that in the proper context a "Terafim" is not only not an evil thing, but  something that sits alongside, King, Priest, Sacrifice, Altar and Ephod. Now,  why did they translate "terafim" as "images" the first time, and leave it as  "terafim" the second time? Because they were either baffled, dishonest or  didn’t know the difference between a statue and an idol.   Also, just because the Dead Sea scrolls agree with our scriptures does not mean  that the Bible is divinely inspired, nor does it indicate that the translation  you read is faithful to the original meaning. BAM

Response:

gentle says: It’s true that people copied the Bible, but these manuscripts were distributed and copied thoughout the Roman world.  We can see when a copyist changed something because his copy differs from all the others. Then why did Luther insist on using the Jewish scriptures, which the Christian world had no control over for 1500 years?

I’m not sure exactly what manuscripts had been discovered at the time of the  Reformation, but I know that we now have the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The Dead Sea  Scrolls were discovered at a time (1950s) when atheists were saying that  copyists had changed the Scriptures down through the ages.  These Scrolls were  so old they were further proof (evidence) that copying changes were not made,  that the copyists were faithful to their duties. Written or not, the "feminist bible" is obviously a fabrication of modern times. Well, according to your theory, God shouldn’t let this happen should He?

Right, God has given us the written evidence to easily expose this as a  fabrication. The reason writing is better than oral tradition is that it can be verified in this manner.  When you enter into an important contract, you get it in writing, and make multiple copies for a reason. Yes, but multiply that by a thousand and 50 different languages. How do you know which have the greatest fidelity? BAM

I’m not sure how many manuscripts there are, some are older than others, but  they are all almost exactly the same in content.  There are some differences  between manuscripts, but even then these differences are very minor and have  no theological significance.  Most modern NT translations note the varience in  the manuscripts with footnotes. Also, the NT was written primarily in Greek.  I think only Matthew is in  Aramaic (which is similar to Hebrew).  The OT is primarily in Hebrew with a  few books in Aramaic.  The copyists did not have to translate, just copy. The reason the reformers accepted just the scriptures is because the  Reformation followed the Renaissance, and the Renaissance had and was  discrediting things like oral tradition as credible evidence of what it says. You must admit, it’s hard to believe without good evidence. Rick

Response:

gentle says: It is wrong to take credit for what God has done. True, and it’s wrong to give God credit for what you have done. Because if you credit God with all the good, you must credit Him with all the evil. This doesn’t seem to bother you. But you’re way, way overboard. BAM

I have never credited God with evil. "When tempted, no one should say, ‘God is tempting me.’  For God cannot be  tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by  his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed…" "Don’t be deceived, my dear brothers.  Every good and perfect gift is from  above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change  like shifting shadows. (James 1:13-17). Rick

Response:

gentle says: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–children born not . . . . of human decision . . . . but born of God."  (John 1:12, 13) Yes – to all who received Him. I.e., those who chose to accept him. You’ve got a serious problem, man. BAM

The scripture does not say "those who chose to accept him" or "those who chose  to receive him."  It clearly says that this is not a human decision.  (John  1:13). Nobody truly believes anything based on choice. A man can be presented with good evidence and still reject it.  But if he  believes it, can he honestly say "I chose to believe the evidence"?  No.  If  he is honest, he must say, "The evidence convinced me." It is not pedantic or tedious to give all the glory to God.  He deserves it,  it’s his. It is wrong to take credit for what God has done. Rick

Response:

gentle says: "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God–children born not … of human decision … but born of God."  (John 1:13)

Fine. But my point was this. No one is tempted beyond his means. If a man does  evil, he has rejected God’s grace he will be punished for it. If a man resists  evil and does good, he will be rewarded. It doesn’t mean he "saved himself".  It means he co-operated with God. BAM

Response:

Is that it? I was waiting for an "ergo" and a "QED". Don’t you see your error? You were talking about being "born again". Anyone can choose that. That’s the whole point of Jesus’ command to preach the gospel to all nations; to give us the opportunity to be saved, by accepting or rejecting. BAM

Is "our decision to believe" or "accepting" the truth a work of man? Man is saved by grace, "through faith–and this not from ourselves, it is the  gift of God–not by works, so that no one can boast.  For we are God’s  workmanship, created…"  (Ephesians 2:8-10). If salvation were a matter of man’s choice, then we could boast.  As it is, we  did not choose to believe, but rather God convinced us of the truth.  We are  God’s workmanship… Man does "good works" only after being saved.  We "are God’s workmanship,  created . . . . to do good works, . . ."  (Ephesians 2:10). Man can reject, but there is nothing man can do to be saved.  "Acceptance" and  "not rejecting" are not the same thing.  One is action, while the other is not  action.  Therefore, no one can boast.  (Ephesians 2:9). "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit give birth to spirit."  (John 3:6).   Who can choose to be born?  Who can choose to be born again? "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the  right to become children of God–children born not . . . . of human decision .  . . . but born of God."  (John 1:12, 13) Rick

Response:

gentle says: All testimony is evidence.  But that does not mean that all testimony is either relevant or credible.

We are now entering the final stages of reductionism, where all speech loses meaning….Let me ask you. You believe the testimony of the Evangelists and the other writers of scripture. You said, you believed their testimony. Do you believe Clement’s testimony? Do you believe Iraneus of Lyons’ testimony? What about Ignatius of Antioch? (these are some of the earliest Church Fathers from whom we still have writings, i.e., "testimony". BAM

Response:

gentle says: Testimony is valid evidence. Really ? What about Mein Kampf? BAM

Everything is evidence of something. Please don’t confuse the issue of whether something is evidence with its relevance to a particular issue and credibility. If the issue were Hitler’s mental state, then Mein Kampf would be relevant and credible evidence. If the issue was the humanity of Jews, then Mein Kampf would be relevant, but not credible. If the issue were whether I cut the grass yesterday, then Mein Kampf is not relevant, and is inadmissible into evidence, making an argument about its crediblity moot.  (Mein Kampf is not valid evidence here because it doesn’t relate to the issue at hand). All testimony is evidence.  But that does not mean that all testimony is either relevant or credible. Rick

Response:

gentle says: All testimony is evidence.  But that does not mean that all testimony is either relevant or credible. Let me ask you. You believe the testimony of the Evangelists and the other writers of scripture. You said, you believed their testimony. Do you believe Clement’s testimony? Do you believe Iraneus of Lyons’ testimony? What about Ignatius of Antioch? (these are some of the earliest Church Fathers from whom we still have writings, i.e., "testimony". BAM

I cannot believe "testimony" I have not heard. Testimony is evaluated on the way it is presented:  Does the witness look you in the eye?  Does he look nervous or figit?  Does he seem to "remember" way more detail than is possible? It is the same with ancient writings.  The Gospels are presented in a straightforward factual manner. I’m sure that I would believe much of the early fathers’ writings as long as they aren’t third, forth, and fifth hand accounts of something. Evidence is only as reliable as its weakest link.  Oral tradion is unreliable and not credible.  Oral tradition would never be admitted into a court of law as proof of what it says. Rick

Response:

gentle says: Jesus gets 100% of the credit.  He deserves it. Nope. Don’t agree. Either would Jesus. If we can’t be responsible  for our salvation, we can’t be responsible for our doom.

We were responsible for our doom even before God promised a savior.  God told  man in the garden, "when you eat of it you will surely die."  (Genesis 2:17). We made our choice in the garden of Eden.  Man died when he disobeyed God.  All  that is left is to be "born again."  (John 3:3). Who can choose to be born?  Who can choose to raise himself from the dead? Rick

Response:

gentle says: What is that 0.000000001% that God requires from us?

Our decision to accept the truth regardless of the temporal outcomes. Jesus gets 100% of the credit.  He deserves it.

Nope. Don’t agree. Either would Jesus. If we can’t be responsible  for our  salvation, we can’t be responsible for our doom. BAM

Response:

    **** Also, just because the Dead Sea scrolls agree with our scriptures does not mean that the Bible is divinely inspired,…

     **** This "testimony" is relevant evidence of divine inspiration: "The word of the Lord came to him…"  (Jeremiah 1:2). "…the heavens were opened and I saw visions of God."  (Ezekiel 1:1). "…we were eyewitnesses of his majesty."  (2 Peter 1:16, 21). This ancient testimony is clearly relevant evidence.  The only question left  is:  Is it credible evidence? Rick

Response:

gentle says: It’s true that people copied the Bible, but these manuscripts were distributed and copied thoughout the Roman world.  We can see when a copyist changed something because his copy differs from all the others.

Then why did Luther insist on using the Jewish scriptures, which the Christian world had no control over for 1500 years? There is a "feminist bible" out now, and it is written, but it disagrees with all the ancient and modern manuscripts and copies in existence. Written or not, the "feminist bible" is obviously a fabrication of modern times.

Well, according to your theory, God shouldn’t let this happen should He? The reason writing is better than oral tradition is that it can be verified in this manner.  When you enter into an important contract, you get it in writing, and make multiple copies for a reason.

Yes, but multiply that by a thousand and 50 different languages. How do you know which have the greatest fidelity? BAM

Response:

Well, gentle, you’ve gone full circle. At this point I don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about or what your point is. BAM

Response:

To gentle: Until you learn the difference between believing and knowing, I don’t think we should move forward. E.g., I know my name. I believe in life after death. BAM

Response:

To gentle: Until you learn the difference between believing and knowing, I don’t think we should move forward. E.g., I know my name. I believe in life after death. BAM

believe:  to take as true, or to have trust or confidence as being true, etc. know:  to be sure of or well informed about. Frankly, I don’t see what this distinction has to do with whether we can honestly choose a belief…   Beliefs, by their very nature, are based in the concept of truth.  If you believe something is true, you can’t honestly just choose to believe something else.  If some new evidence convinces you that your old beliefs were wrong, you still haven’t made a choice.  You are bound by your conscience. Or are you saying that a belief is something we take as true regardless of the evidence?… This is where you show your philisophical weakness. When you see the curve in the road, you can no longer believe in it. You then *know* it. Belief is for those who have no knowledge yet. Thus, if someone hands me a roadmap. I *believe* it will get me to my destination. When I get there, I then know that the map was correct.

Why did you believe the map would get you to your destination?  Because of a choice?  Or because the map looked reliable?  The map itself either convinces you of its reliability or unreliability, doesn’t it? When a witness testifies in court, is the jury supposed to choose who they believe, or are they supposed to let the witness do the convincing? I believe that Jesus is my Savior because his disciples recorded the events of his life and their testimony about him convinced me.  Testimony is valid evidence. But if our belief in Jesus is really based on choice and not evidence, then the atheists are right, and we are a sad lot.  If that is the case, we don’t have belief, we have a mental disorder. Rick

Response:

gentle says : (here we go again) Frankly, I don’t see what this distinction has to do with whether we can honestly choose a belief…   Beliefs, by their very nature, are based in the concept of truth.  If you believe something is true, you can’t honestly just choose to believe something else.

You said believing and knowing were the same thing – now you’re running around in circles. Thomas chose NOT to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. He wouldn’t believe – he had to KNOW. We believe – we don’t know. If some new evidence convinces you that your old beliefs were wrong, you still haven’t made a choice.  You are bound by your conscience.

Belief has nothing to do with evidence. Evidence proves the truth. Or are you saying that a belief is something we take as true regardless of the evidence?…

No, belief is something we take as true when the evidence (i.e., those things available to the senses) are insufficient. Why did you believe the map would get you to your destination?  Because of a choice?  Or because the map looked reliable?

No, because I believe that the person who gave me directions was capable and trustworthy. I could have been mistaken though. When a witness testifies in court, is the jury supposed to choose who they believe, or are they supposed to let the witness do the convincing?

Neither. In a criminal trial, statments of witnesses are not as important as hard core evidence (letters, murder weapon, fingerprints). If we KNEW the person committed the crime, there would be nothing to try. But we don’t know. So we can only believe beyond a shadow of a doubt – one step beyond is knowing. I believe that Jesus is my Savior because his disciples recorded the events of his life and their testimony about him convinced me.  Testimony is valid evidence.

So do I – but you don’t KNOW – you believe. Others look at the same testimony and disbelieve. In general, we choose to believe in the things we love. But if our belief in Jesus is really based on choice and not evidence, then the atheists are right, and we are a sad lot.  If that is the case, we don’t have belief, we have a mental disorder.

You have no evidence. You believe for the same reason I believed the guy who drew me the road map. I trusted him to be capable and trustworthy. BAM

Response:

gentle says : Why did you believe the map would get you to your destination?  Because of a choice?  Or because the map looked reliable? No, because I believe that the person who gave me directions was capable and trustworthy. I could have been mistaken though.

Why did you believe the person was capable and trustworthy?  Because of a choice?  Or because the person looked capable and trustworthy? Sure, you could have been mistaken, but if because of his actions you believed he was lying, could you still honestly choose to believe he was not lying?  No.  You are bound by your conscience like everyone else. When a witness testifies in court, is the jury supposed to choose who they believe, or are they supposed to let the witness do the convincing? Neither. In a criminal trial, statments of witnesses are not as important as hard core evidence (letters, murder weapon, fingerprints).

Statements of witnesses are "hard core" evidence.  In fact, no "hard core" evidence is ever admitted into court unless it is first authenticated by a witness’ testimony (i.e., a police officer says, "Yeah that’s the gun we found at the scene of the crime."  "Yeah, those are the fingerprints we found."  "Yeah, the handwriting of the defendant matches the handwriting in this letter.") Without testimony, so called "hard core" evidence is worthless. I believe that Jesus is my Savior because his disciples recorded the events of his life and their testimony about him convinced me.  Testimony is valid evidence. But if our belief in Jesus is really based on choice and not evidence, then the atheists are right, and we are a sad lot.  If that is the case, we don’t have a belief, we have a mental disorder.

Testimony is valid evidence. Rick

Response:

Some people believe in ghosts, some don’t. I do, but without a scrap of evidence. Isn’t faith "belief in things unseen"?

I believe in God, but not because I have seen him, but rather because I have seen evidence of him. If I believe in a "ghost," it is because others have tesitified to its existence.  That testimony is relevant evidence, if not always credible. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. "God" is an extraordinary claim, but the existence of an orderly universe is also extraordinary proof. Rick

Response:

God wants us to know him.  The bible is a very good source to start with. I know where you can get over 2000 years worth of accumulated bible study.   Why reinvent the wheel?  (protestant – "It took me 7 years of study to find that out.  How did you know?"  Catholic – "It’s in the footnotes of my Catholic bible translation.")  Turn to Catholic Church scholars. Just a helpful suggestion.  How far back does your sect trace its history? And how much study can any one person do? One snowflake = no problem.  One billion snowflakes = blizzard.  The Catholic Church has the blizzard of faith, all aspects supporting each other. I love written tradition too.  Can you send me a copy of the collected writings of Jesus?  No, because Jesus passed all of His wisdom orally. Kind of makes you wonder whether to discount oral tradition. – Joseph – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – gentle says: I cannot believe "testimony" I have not heard. Does this mean you have never read the early Church Fathers? St. Paul said "test all things". Sorry, I only have so much time, but I’ll get around to it.  Just figured I’d start with the Bible, that’s going to take me awhile. Oral tradition is not credible? Well why would the written word be? Anyone can alter a manuscript, and anyone can lie out loud. Jesus didn’t tell His disciples to write anything down. He said "He who hears you hears me." What is this fascination with writing you have? Why do you mistrust people, but trust books? People write books! BAM It’s true that people copied the Bible, but these manuscripts were distributed and copied thoughout the Roman world.  We can see when a copyist changed something because his copy differs from all the others. There is a "feminist bible" out now, and it is written, but it disagrees with all the ancient and modern manuscripts and copies in existence. Written or not, the "feminist bible" is obviously a fabrication of modern times. The reason writing is better than oral tradition is that it can be verified in this manner.  When you enter into an important contract, you get it in writing, and make multiple copies for a reason. The ancient manuscripts of the Bible were copied multiple times in many different places.  God gave us these multiple copies for a reason. Rick

Response:

Gentle asks (sorry I hit the wrong button) Now that you believe this person is trustworthy based on the evidence, can you choose to believe he is a liar without new evidence comming to light?

I believed he was trustworthy, based upon an overall judgement. I might not trust him to pick me up at 9:00 sharp, or for many other things. And I don’t "believe" that anyone is a liar – I either know or I don’t know. The concept of choice involves freedom.  Do you feel free to believe anything?  Or do you feel your beliefs are bound by the evidence and the concept of truth?

Some people believe in ghosts, some don’t. I do, but without a scrap of evidence. Isn’t faith "belief in things unseen"? Beliefs, by their very nature, are rooted in the concept of truth, so unless external factors change your perception of the truth, you are not free to choose new beliefs.

I can see a person from a distance with long hair and tight jeans and believe it’s a girl, only to find out closer up that it’s a guy. I could believe or disbelieve that the sun will come up tomorrow. But I don’t know it will. I choose to believe that  it will.  If you deny "choice" you deny personal responsibility – maybe that is exactly what you are hell bent upon renouncing. It is God who convicts the human heart.  It is God who saves.

what does that mean "convicts the human heart"? You’re not saying God MAKES us sin are you? And even though God saves us, it’s only if we act properly. A life guard may save me if I yell "help", but if I yell "get lost" he may look away. BAM

Response:

We asked, "What does God require?" Then we asked whether God requires that we choose to believe in him. Then we asked whether man can choose to believe. You will convince me that a man can honestly choose his beliefs when you convince me that you have an honest belief that you based on choice and not on evidence. Also, keep in mind that man can reject God.  The question is not whether man can reject God, but whether man can choose to believe God. Here is the evidence so far: Why did you believe the person was capable and trustworthy?  Because of a choice?  Or because the person looked capable and trustworthy? Must you allow me only multiple choice answers? Because, through my experience, the person was trustworthy. I made an informed decision.

Now that you believe this person is trustworthy based on the evidence, can you choose to believe he is a liar without new evidence comming to light? The concept of choice involves freedom.  Do you feel free to believe anything?  Or do you feel your beliefs are bound by the evidence and the concept of truth? (Don’t worry, this isn’t multiple choice.  If you can think of a category where you are only partly bound to believe the truth and partly free to believe whatever you want, please feel free to try to convince me.  But be warned, I’m not going to just choose to believe you). Beliefs, by their very nature, are rooted in the concept of truth, so unless external factors change your perception of the truth, you are not free to choose new beliefs. It is God who convicts the human heart.  It is God who saves. Rick

Response:

gentle asks: You will convince me that a man can honestly choose his beliefs when you convince me that you have an honest belief that you based on choice and not on evidence.

My decision to remain a Catholic was based on some evidence, but the evidence obviously is not considered ample by non-Catholics. So, some choose to believe, and some choose not to. Also, keep in mind that man can reject God.  The question is not whether man can reject God, but whether man can choose to believe God.

Obviously, he can choose either way. But "believing" in God is not the hurdle. Serving God is.

Response:

gentle says: Why did you believe the person was capable and trustworthy?  Because of a choice?  Or because the person looked capable and trustworthy?

Must you allow me only multiple choice answers? Because, through my experience, the person was trustworthy. I made an informed decision. Sure, you could have been mistaken, but if because of his actions you believed he was lying, could you still honestly choose to believe he was not lying?  No.  You are bound by your conscience like everyone else.

Nobody is bound by his conscience. A person can accept or reject his conscience. Or, he can create a false conscience, e.g., "abortion is good because it cuts down the surplus population". Statements of witnesses are "hard core" evidence.  In fact, no "hard core" evidence is ever admitted into court unless it is first authenticated by a witness’ testimony (i.e., a police officer says, "Yeah that’s the gun we found at the scene of the crime."  "Yeah, those are the fingerprints we found."  "Yeah, the handwriting of the defendant matches the handwriting in this letter.")

Not true. Witnesses can be discredited. (see Fuhrman) Without testimony, so called "hard core" evidence is worthless.

You mean without credible testimony. Testimony is valid evidence.

Really ? What about Mein Kampf? BAM

Response:

Filed under: Feminist

Related Posts

• HELP PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
• Now what?
• Something I saw
• Marley - You missed a GREAT hearing in MA...
• fear of intimacy
• A proposal for evolution paradigm shift
• The benefit of being armed.
• feeling insecure
• Sorry i can't shut up
• What a creep