04 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf your definition of having faith in your god is that you must always obey, then every Christian loses their faith hundreds of times a day. I think that's a different sort of thing than losing your faith like an apostate does.
But is not disobeying God loosing their faith in him on some level? Granted, they believed he existed but does that mean they could still not loose their faith in him? You conceede that they disobeyed God yet you seem to indicate that they did not really loose faith in him. How can this be? For example, perhaps you believe that George Bush is real but per ...[text shortened]... e, it matters little if philosophy or apologetics is the route in which you explore such truths.
04 Sep 07
Originally posted by telerionAlthough as believers we may sin, or loosing faith, one does not have to be enlsaved by such sin. That is why Chrsit came which was to set us free from such sin not just in the next life but in this life presently.
If your definition of having faith in your god is that you must always obey, then every Christian loses their faith hundreds of times a day. I think that's a different sort of thing than losing your faith like an apostate does.
04 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyOkay, so then haven't you really been using two different ideas of "losing faith"?
Although as believers we may sin, or loosing faith, one does not have to be enlsaved by such sin. That is why Chrsit came which was to set us free from such sin not just in the next life but in this life presently.
05 Sep 07
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionThat's better! You see I did'nt recognize the lower case letters and all.
OKAY, SO THEN HAVEN'T YOU REALLY BEEN USING TWO DIFFERENT IDEAS OF 'LOSING FAITH'?
I think what you are asking is there are two different ideas of losing faith? Now we are communicating!!
What do you mean by this? Loosing faith is loosing faith. However, there are different responses to loosing faith. The first of which is to throw up your hands and say that nothing can change this fact because we have a sin nature. The other is to throw up your hands and ask God to help you do the impossible via repentance. God then can help us to the impossible as Christ later stated in John 8:34 which says, "Verily, Verily, I say to you, whosoever committs a sin is a slave of sin. And the slave abides not in the house for ever; but the Son abides for ever. If the Son therefore will make you free, you will be free indeed."
05 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe two types of "losing faith" that seem to be floating around here are the following:
That's better! You see I did'nt recognize the lower case letters and all.
I think what you are asking is there are two different ideas of losing faith? Now we are communicating!!
What do you mean by this? Loosing faith is loosing faith. However, there are different responses to loosing faith. The first of which is to throw up your hands and say t ...[text shortened]... the Son abides for ever. If the Son therefore will make you free, you will be free indeed."
1) When a Christian, or other believer in God, commits an act of disobedience to one of God's commandments.
This occurs in every Christian's life. In most cases, at a very high frequency, like maybe 100 or more times per day. The Christian, even if only momentarily, behaves as if God were not right there watching him. This ignoring of God suggests a weakness or loss of faith in his everpresent existence. IMO, this also describes the sort of "losing faith" that transpires in the story of the Fall.
2) When a Christian, or other believer in God, commits apostasy by questioning the reality of God's existence to the point of considerable doubt or flat denial.
I think this is the more commonly understood definition of "losing faith." It also seems to be one that would naturally arise in a discussion of Christian apologetics and mainstream philosophy. Many Christian's see philosophy as an intellectual pitfall, perhaps even to some extent constructed by Satan himself, set up to lead babes in Christ into spiritual confusion.
05 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionHere is something for you to munch on.
The two types of "losing faith" that seem to be floating around here are the following:
1) When a Christian, or other believer in God, commits an act of disobedience to one of God's commandments.
This occurs in every Christian's life. In most cases, at a very high frequency, like maybe 100 or more times per day. The Christian, even if only constructed by Satan himself, set up to lead babes in Christ into spiritual confusion.
Romans 14:23 "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Notice the verse in question says nothing about questioning God's existence.
05 Sep 07
Originally posted by whodeyYou know that doesn't necessarily imply that whatever is sin is not of faith.
Here is something for you to munch on.
Romans 14:23 "For whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
Notice the verse in question says nothing about questioning God's existence.
In other words,
(~A => B) ~= (~B => A)
According to this (very brief, very distilled) passage, sin could be of faith. Praise Jesus!
05 Sep 07
Originally posted by telerionIf so then you are in good standing. Congradulations!!
You know that doesn't necessarily imply that whatever is sin is not of faith.
In other words,
(~A => B) ~= (~B => A)
According to this (very brief, very distilled) passage, sin could be of faith. Praise Jesus!
08 Sep 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloI don't know what is meant by "beyond space". And it is contradictory to say that some thing is simultaneously outside time and yet also active in time.
I agree with telerion that it would be better for you to just state your argument in full: define terms clearly (including, of course, 'God'😉 and then just present all the premises needed to support your conclusion that God exists.
I have to say, though, that I'm already skeptical since your concept of 'God' seems clearly self-contradictory, or maybe ...[text shortened]... n more depth, along with discussion of Platonism vs. reductionism with respect to time.]
For someone as smart as you, LJ, such a concept should hardly represent an obstacle to understanding. For instance, you are beyond your computer and yet you are able to manipulate the same in such a manner as to influence (act) within the confines of Al Gore's amazing invention, the internet.
08 Sep 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCan you explain "beyond space" and "outside time" without the use of an analogy? Just because one can be outside or beyond his computer does not mean that he can be outside time or beyond space.
[b]I don't know what is meant by "beyond space". And it is contradictory to say that some thing is simultaneously outside time and yet also active in time.
For someone as smart as you, LJ, such a concept should hardly represent an obstacle to understanding. For instance, you are beyond your computer and yet you are able to manipulate the same in suc ...[text shortened]... nner as to influence (act) within the confines of Al Gore's amazing invention, the internet.[/b]
08 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe claim that some thing is both outside time and causally active in time entails contradiction: that the thing is both changeless and not changeless. Concepts that are logically impossible are not instantiated in the real world, Freaky.
[b]I don't know what is meant by "beyond space". And it is contradictory to say that some thing is simultaneously outside time and yet also active in time.
For someone as smart as you, LJ, such a concept should hardly represent an obstacle to understanding. For instance, you are beyond your computer and yet you are able to manipulate the same in suc ...[text shortened]... nner as to influence (act) within the confines of Al Gore's amazing invention, the internet.[/b]
Your computer example bears no relevance to this discussion.