Faith – The First Doctrine of the AntiChrist

The Churches established by the True Heirs of Christ were of course characterized by all sorts of Supernatural Wonders and Miracles. The True Apostles and Disciples were One in the True Vine of Christ, and the Fruit of that Vine were quite evident. No, not everyone could perform Miracles. Growing into the Vine of Christ is as much a biological as Supernatural Process and so it takes time. But those who persisted in the True Church eventually bore the Fruit.

And then there were the Congregations of the Antichrist – of the Church of Paul. Certainly the Church of Satan can have no Grace, and in the Congregations of Paul there were no Miracles. Paul created some substitutes. The Practice of “Talking in Tongues” was a decoy for the Miraculous. Instead of multiplying loaves or walking on water, Paul convinced his people that the Grace of God consisted in incoherent mumbling.

But Jesus was known for a Ministry of Miraculous Healings. Paul was delivering none of this, and he eventually would need to explain why not. His explanation was the Doctrine of Faith.

“Faith” would be used to shift the blame for the failure to produce the Miraculous. The Doctrine of Faith is not so much a Positive Doctrine, in that it is intended to explain why there ARE Miracles, but it is practically used as a Negative Doctrine, to explain why there ARE NOT Miracles. Paul did not need to explain why there were so many miracles, but why there were so few. And the Explanation was not that Paul and his Minions were spiritually sterile. Using the Doctrine of Sufficient Faith, the Congregations themselves could be blamed, in that, “We would have plenty of miracles except that you people don’t have enough Faith”.

In studying the True Saints of the Marian Catholic Church, we do not see that the recipients of their Miracles were particularly full of a significantly higher level of Faith then those of the disappointed Congregations of the Pauline Pretenders. Even the Saints themselves were not so remarkable for their absolute certainties. They were simply affiliated with the Correct Church.

Real Miracles do not require Faith.

Real Miracles do not require Faith.

I have some questions:

1. Can anyone -- regardless of how strong their faith is, as long as it is the correct faith -- be able to see a miracle?

2. Are miracles taking place even right here, right now -- it is just that people do not see them, because they don't have the correct faith?

3. Who is making the miracles happen?

4. What is the definition of a miracle?

5. Why do miracles happen?

Leo,

Faith – The First Doctrine of the AntiChrist

And the basis of belief of every religionist that has ever lived.

The Churches established by the True Heirs of Christ were of course characterized by all sorts of Supernatural Wonders and Miracles.

No, only unsubstantiated claims. You believe them purely on faith.

No, not everyone could perform Miracles.

No link has ever been established between unexplained phenomena and a god or the supernatural. You make the speculative link yourself and then believe your own story based on faith.

Growing into the Vine of Christ is as much a biological as Supernatural Process and so it takes time. But those who persisted in the True Church eventually bore the Fruit.

Such is the nature of your faith.

But Jesus was known for a Ministry of Miraculous Healings.

No, only stories of an alleged Jesus claims miracles and these are all hearsay since there are no known independent eye witnesses to the alleged Jesus and the best estimates for the invention of the miracle stories comes some 20 years after he was meant to have died (according to Q research).

Paul was delivering none of this, and he eventually would need to explain why not. His explanation was the Doctrine of Faith.

Like any true Christian since he never met the alleged Jesus and knew that faith was all he had just like every Christian.

“Faith” would be used to shift the blame for the failure to produce the Miraculous.

Faith is all you have since there are no proofs of miracles, only claims and unexplained events – none of which show a link to a god.

The Doctrine of Faith is not so much a Positive Doctrine, in that it is intended to explain why there ARE Miracles, but it is practically used as a Negative Doctrine, to explain why there ARE NOT Miracles.

If anyone could actually prove a miracle then they could easily dismiss the overwhelming need among religionists to rely so heavily on faith. Note that you have only made claims for miracles here and have yet to show proof for any of them. You believe them only because of your faith.

Paul did not need to explain why there were so many miracles, but why there were so few.

No, he wrote his letters in Greece and Asia Minor and quite a distance from Palestine where the myth makers invented the miracle stories and they did not appear in Mark until some 30 years after that. Paul had already written his letters by that time. He didn’t report any miracles because there weren’t any.

Real Miracles do not require Faith.

Then show a true miracle and link it to a god, otherwise all you have is faith as everyone knows, except you it seems.

Okay, let me try again.

Maybe it would help to distinguish between Belief and Faith, though often the words and their meanings are used indistinguishably, but in order to arrange my ideas, let us suppose for a moment that those two words have unique definitions. "Belief" is simple assent and conviction. It is a First Order condition of the Personality -- it presupposes that actual Knowledge is in the person's personal inventory. "Faith" is Second Order -- there is no actual Belief, but only the hope and desire to have Belief. The Doctrine of Faith dictates that a person who thus wishes to have Belief will have Magical Powers -- the greater the desire, the greater the Power.

Now, isn't it silly to suppose that a Second Order Condition could possibly be more Powerful then a First Order Condition?

Ofcourse Faith has its value, as a Second Order Condition. It is a predispositon to believe, and an active aspiration which pushes the aspirant to Seek and Find. But, beyond that, it carries no special power.

Leo,



only stories of an alleged Jesus claims miracles and these are all hearsay since there are no known independent eye witnesses to the alleged Jesus and the best estimates for the invention of the miracle stories comes some 20 years after he was meant to have died (according to Q research).

Faith is all you have since there are no proofs of miracles, only claims and unexplained events – none of which show a link to a god.



No, he wrote his letters in Greece and Asia Minor and quite a distance from Palestine where the myth makers invented the miracle stories and they did not appear in Mark until some 30 years after that. Paul had already written his letters by that time. He didn’t report any miracles because there weren’t any.



Then show a true miracle and link it to a god, otherwise all you have is faith as everyone knows, except you it seems.


You claim there are no Proofs for the Miraculous because, I assume, you are lifting the Bar with the Famous Atheist dictum "Extraordinary Claims require extraordinary proofs", or, as you effectively understand it, "Impossible Claims are Impossible to Prove". The Vatican has a Library the size of a Football Field stuffed with Legal Evidentiary Proofs for the Miraculous.

And I have experienced Miracles. And, here, let me say again that the experience of God first hand does not confer FAITH, but Belief. Again, Belief is First Order -- something a person has. Faith is Second Order -- something a person wants. A Person with Faith wants to Believe.

Leo,

If you want your message to be delivered, then you have to help me understand it.
So I am asking you to answer the questions from my previous post.

I have some questions:

1. Can anyone -- regardless of how strong their faith is, as long as it is the correct faith -- be able to see a miracle?

2. Are miracles taking place even right here, right now -- it is just that people do not see them, because they don't have the correct faith?

3. Who is making the miracles happen?

4. What is the definition of a miracle?

5. Why do miracles happen?


I'm sorry that I neglected this Post... I've been sleeping. My apologies for taking so long to answer.

yes, anybody can see a miracle. The Priests of Baal were able to see the Miracle of Fire from the Sky. The Druid Priests were able to see Saint Patrick cursing their Senior Members to Death during the Great Debate. Most of the Witnesses to the Fatima Miracle of the Sun were skeptics who showed up in order to deny that anything would ever happen.

Yes, Miracles should be happening right now, and anybody would be able to see and experience them. But one of my personal Revelations expressed to me the idea that all of the Three Higher Religions are now undergoing a Spiritual Drought. So there are not any many Miracles as there should be, but since we are not entirely DEAD, yet, there are still a few. But it bothers me that there are presently no First Magnitude Saints... or none that I know about.

Who is making the Miracles. Most Saints say that God is Agent for the Miraculous. However, most of the First Magnitude Saints were able to assert Miraculous Powers instantaneously -- without time to utter a prayer. For instance, Saint Francis of Paola was able to stop a man from falling to his death from a Church Steeple. The Church was under construction and one of the laborers fell from the very top. Francis was able to suspend the man in mid-air. His Bishop had told him to be discreet with his Miracles, and so Francis left the man hanging suspended, and went to ask approval to finish saving the man. I can only suppose there was no time to utter a prayer.

Others of Saint Francis of Paola's Miracles transpired without prayer. Francis kept a pet Lamb named Martinello. One day the workmen, not knowing the difference, had Martinello for lunch. They tossed the skin and bones into the Brick Kiln where we can imagine that it was incinerated in the matter of seconds. But Francis came along calling for his pet, and when he asked the Laborers, they pointed to the flaming Kiln. Francis opened the Furnace Door and said "Martinello, you naughty thing! Jump out of there before you get burnt!" And out of the Flames jumped this happy little Lamb.

One a Vatican Investigator came to observe Francis of Paola. So Francis decided to give the man a demonstration. Francis crossed the room and picked up a cherry red hot stove that, firstly, was too large for any old man to pick up by himself, and, secondly, would have turned his hands to charcoal in just one or two seconds. Holding up the Red Hot Stove in his hands, Francis asked the Vatican Investigator whether he knew how he could do such a thing. The Vatican Investigator was confounded by it all and answered "no, he did not understand how such a thing could be done". Francis told him he could do such things simply because he wanted to... that he could do anything he willed to do. So, no matter what Saints may say about "God doing Everything", it is the Will of the Saints that instigate the Divine Actions.

A Miracle is a Supernatural Manipulation of Physical Reality. If it is impossible and happens anyway, that is a Miracle. They can take many forms. One of the Best Miracles of the twentieth Century has been the Cure of a Blind Girl by Saint Padre Pio. The Girl was born without pupils in her eyes. It was physically impossible for her to see. But her mother brought her to Padre Pio and afterward she could see perfectly. But when the Doctors examined her, there was still all of the original damage. Nothing had been 'fixed'. it was still impossible for the girl's eyes to process light and images, but somehow the Girl was still able to 'see'. That is a miracle!

As for Miracles occuring now. Check out some documentation from the Lourdes France Website:

http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=488

*So I am asking you to answer the questions from my previous post.*

I think that he likes to evade you, because he truly has no answers.

Leo-
Did Father Nacho follow line of (True Heirs of Christ on his bloodline?) or did he just happened to bring people back from death by his own faith?.

Godless.

Leo-
Did Father Nacho follow line of (True Heirs of Christ on his bloodline?) or did he just happened to bring people back from death by his own faith?.

Godless.

Some Miracles are Miracles of the Church. When I was sick and wanted to be cured, I did not ask who the most Miraculous Priest in the Parish happened to be at the time. I simply looked at the duty roster to see whose job it was to heal me.

The Cathelic Church is the True Vine of Christ. Some men become Agents for the Miraculous simply by affiliating themselves with The Church.

Here is a 'for instance'. The Most Powerful Saint in All History -- Saint Vincent Ferrer would often perform thousands of Miracles a day. Indeed, sometimes he would need to perform more miracles then his schedule would allow, and he would delegate local Clergy to take his Miraculous Powers to the outlying villiages of the Main Towns he was visiting. And for just that one day, these Local Clergy were capable of Healing the Sick. Does this mean that these Secondary Clergy members were Saints in their own right. Well, no. Vincent Ferrer was the Will behind the Miracles.

Is Father Nacho a Saint in his own right, or is he simply a Channel for the Institutional Spiritual Power of the Church as the Legitimate Vine of Christ? Maybe a little of both. It is difficult to determine where the one begins and the other ends.

Leo,

Okay, let me try again.

Maybe it would help to distinguish between Belief and Faith, though often the words and their meanings are used indistinguishably, but in order to arrange my ideas, let us suppose for a moment that those two words have unique definitions. "Belief" is simple assent and conviction. It is a First Order condition of the Personality -- it presupposes that actual Knowledge is in the person's personal inventory. "Faith" is Second Order -- there is no actual Belief, but only the hope and desire to have Belief. The Doctrine of Faith dictates that a person who thus wishes to have Belief will have Magical Powers -- the greater the desire, the greater the Power.

Now, isn't it silly to suppose that a Second Order Condition could possibly be more Powerful then a First Order Condition?

Ofcourse Faith has its value, as a Second Order Condition. It is a predispositon to believe, and an active aspiration which pushes the aspirant to Seek and Find. But, beyond that, it carries no special power.

That is pretty much nonsense and unnecessarily complicated.

Belief is the conviction that an assertion is true.

What is at issue is the basis for the belief.

Faith is a belief without evidence and proof.

It is also possible to hold a belief that is based on proofs, i.e. I believe that 1+1=2. Would you like me to quote the mathematical proof for this?

Hope that is clearer for you.

Leo,

The Vatican has a Library the size of a Football Field stuffed with Legal Evidentiary Proofs for the Miraculous.

Yet none have withstood independent scientific examination and none have provided a proof for the existence of a god, right?

And I have experienced Miracles.

I’m sure you believe that but it doesn’t provide any type of credible proof for anyone else.

And, here, let me say again that the experience of God first hand does not confer FAITH, but Belief.

You are simply confused by the two terms. FAITH is a belief but without evidence. This is irrational belief. If you mean God confers a rational belief then that requires a proof. And as it stands there are no proofs for gods and without that all important cause you can’t claim there have ever been any miracles.

Again, Belief is First Order -- something a person has. Faith is Second Order -- something a person wants. A Person with Faith wants to Believe.

Gibberish.

Leo,



That is pretty much nonsense and unnecessarily complicated.

Belief is the conviction that an assertion is true.

What is at issue is the basis for the belief.

Faith is a belief without evidence and proof.

It is also possible to hold a belief that is based on proofs, i.e. I believe that 1+1=2. Would you like me to quote the mathematical proof for this?

Hope that is clearer for you.

I have no problem understanding the distinction. We have all heard your explanation before, but apparently it has not ever really taken, has it.

So I used first order and second order modelling. Too complicated for you to follow, huh?

Besides your explanation tangles up Faith and Belief. You say that Faith is Belief without Proof. Well, duh, you cannot have Belief without Conviction, and you cannot have Conviction without some kind of Proof. We arrive at my 1st and 2nd Order Modelling again. If your explanation cannot work because on internal contradictions, then you are stuck with trying to understand my explanation. Put on your thinking cap, if you have to. BELIEF is First Order --a person IS convinced. FAITH is Second Order -- a person would like to be convinced and may even act in such a way as though he were convinced -- but it is Second Order. Pretending to BELIEVE is not the same as BELIEVING.

Leo,



Yet none have withstood independent scientific examination and none have provided a proof for the existence of a god, right?





Certainly Independent Agencies have signed off on Vatican Investigations, but the problem with you Atheists is one of Category -- as soon as an Agency approves of the Vatican, BY YOUR DEFINITIONS, it is no longer Independent.

So your Argument is one of Category, not one of FACT. In your Categories, nobody that believes in Miracles is any longer Independent -- they have taken the Religious Side and are now YOUR ENEMIES.

The Medical Association at Lourdes is Independent of the Vatican, and they are happy enough. You need to pull your head out of the sand, or you need to stop your deliberate lying.

Leo,

Besides your explanation tangles up Faith and Belief. You say that Faith is Belief without Proof. Well, duh, you cannot have Belief without Conviction, and you cannot have Conviction without some kind of Proof.

Why?

People can quite easily feel convinced that something is true regardless of any evidence or proof – it is called faith.

These definitions are not intended to be controversial or by any means my own. These concepts are simple and straightforward. You are simply out of step and need to rethink your perspective on this.

And again it is possible to believe that something is true whether it has been proved or not. The rational thinker tends to only believe those things are true that have substantial evidence and proofs. The irrational thinker will tend to believe almost anything is true from any source with little if any regard for proofs or evidence.

I’ll quote Webster as a guide although I know you have problems with authoritative dictionaries –

Belief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer *my belief that I had caught all the errors*. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof *an unshakable faith in God*. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent *a theory now given credence by scientists*. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof *gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness*. synonym see in addition OPINION.

Faith

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions.

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust.

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs.

synonyms see BELIEF
–in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY.

Final

Those definitions work for me as they do millions of others. So do you want to re-think your opening statement? – ”We have all heard your explanation before, but apparently it has not ever really taken, has it. “

Dear Chris

Your argument is that both words -- Faith and Belief -- mean the same thing. It is your point that categorical distinctions should not be recognized because most people are too stupid and intellectually blunt to see them. It appears you simply cannot rise up to the intellectual demands of my argument.

But you have company. There are two Dictionary Companies in America -- Webster and Random House. Webster has an editorial policy to define words using other words which they suppose mean the same thing, or 'close enough'. Random House Company shudders at such intellectual carelessness and insists that each word is unique and deserves to be distinguished from every other word.

Maybe we should hold off on our discussion until I either begin to prefer stupid Webster dictionaries, or when you begin to understand what Random House is all about.

Faith and belief have minor distinctions, at least in Catholic theology. Protestants tend not to differentiate between them because of salvation by sola-fide.

Faith and belief have minor distinctions, at least in Catholic theology. Protestants tend not to differentiate between them because of salvation by sola-fide.

Yes, and I am pointing out that there is a problem with people failing to make a distinction between Faith and Belief.

Belief is a Valuable Attainment. Belief means that a person has put actual knowledge into his personal Inventory. It gives him an actual real Skill or a solid insight based on a Reality.

But the Antichrist taught that Faith was equivalent to Belief. This is to suppose that BS is the same as Real Knowledge.

Did you understand the First Order and Second Order Explanation I made. It is not my own Logic, but that of a Doctor friend of mine. Belief is First Order. It is Knowledge or Skill that actually belongs to a Person. Faith is Second Order. It is a wish to attain a skill or knowledge. An intent.

The difference between First and Second Order is the difference between someone who knows Latin and someone who wants to learn Latin.

Now, for Christianity to make no distinction between Knowing and simply wanting to Know, is effective theft and misrepresentation. It is Satanic.

The Churches established by the True Heirs of Christ were of course characterized by all sorts of Supernatural Wonders and Miracles.
I think you are mistaken about this.

Re: Paul the anti-christ.
I find it interesting that a catholic would hold this view, since it would seem that much of catholic doctrine is strictly Pauline as opposed to being based on the teachings of Jesus. If it weren't for Paul, Christianity (followers of the teachings of Jesus and James) would simply be a sect of Judaism, and there would be no catholic church.
Congregations of Paul there were no Miracles. Paul created some substitutes.
Now that's sweetly ironic, considering that Paul never even met Jesus incarnate, and totally based his entire spiel on his "miraculous" vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.

I do agree however that Paul was the single biggest corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

I think you are mistaken about this.

Re: Paul the anti-christ.
I find it interesting that a catholic would hold this view, since it would seem that much of catholic doctrine is strictly Pauline as opposed to being based on the teachings of Jesus. If it weren't for Paul, Christianity (followers of the teachings of Jesus and James) would simply be a sect of Judaism, and there would be no catholic church.

Now that's sweetly ironic, considering that Paul never even met Jesus incarnate, and totally based his entire spiel on his "miraculous" vision of Christ on the road to Damascus.

I do agree however that Paul was the single biggest corrupter of the teachings of Jesus.

Yes, without Paul the Dispensation of Christ would have been an Integral Outgrowth of Jewish Tradition. Paul turned it into a separate Religion. It is remarkable that Catholics see no problem here. One of Catholicisms most Sacred Prayers is Our Lady's Magnifcat from the 1st Chapter of the Gospel of Luke. In that Prayer She upholds Judaism. this is just how it should be. Yet, I once heard a Priest while conducting a Bible Study say something to the effect that it was okay to abandon the Jewish Traditions and Holidays because "What do we need two Religions for", putting the emphasis of priority upon the new usurper Religion.

Catholicism's only excuse for being is that Messianic Judaism -- the Religion of the Original 12 Apostles -- did not survive the Religious Civil Wars. They were all part of the Dispensation which Christ Prophesized would end within One Generation. It did. Catholicism was a makeshift. It was the Great "Better than Nothing".

But not many Catholics would overtly agree with me. However, Catholics who call themselves Marian Catholics 'feel' the way I do. They may not even intellectually know why. But everything in the Catholic Church that isn't centered around Mary, is centered around Paul, and so for Catholics to make the conscious choise that they are "Marian" is to in effect renounce Paul as the Antichrist... even if such a notion would come as a surprise to them.

Yes, and I am pointing out that there is a problem with people failing to make a distinction between Faith and Belief.

Well, faith really goes by different definitions depending on who is using it. The hebrew for faith is used to mean both loyality and sight of the higher purposes. But no where is faith or believe equivalent to irrational belief. Hence Thomas was shown Jesus' wounds and Jesus commanded him to believe, and Jesus told the people to believe because of the signs that he had done.


But the Antichrist taught that Faith was equivalent to Belief. This is to suppose that BS is the same as Real Knowledge.

Paul doesn't make the equivalence becaues he places love before faith and hope.


Did you understand the First Order and Second Order Explanation I made. It is not my own Logic, but that of a Doctor friend of mine. Belief is First Order. It is Knowledge or Skill that actually belongs to a Person. Faith is Second Order. It is a wish to attain a skill or knowledge. An intent.

I disagree that faith is simply intent. Faith is how someone sees, very much how they come to belief. Belief fulfills faith.

Paul doesn't make the equivalence becaues he places love before faith and hope.

I stand by my guess that Paul was using the same ploy used today by the New Agers, that 'wishes can make dreams come true, and if you ain't getting what you want, it is your fault for not wishing hard enough'. Paul was placing the responsibility of his failure to produce the Miraculous on the shoulders of his Congregations by accusing them of having insufficient Faith. Why else have a Doctrine of Faith, if not to use it as a Loophole for the Phooneys? True Mystics don't require Faith. They do the Work and they get the Reward.



I disagree that faith is simply intent. Faith is how someone sees, very much how they come to belief. Belief fulfills faith.

Yes, I even noticed that I began to use the idea of Faith and Intent indistinguishably. I was getting lazy. I meant that where Faith DOES HAVE a legitimate role is in the support of Honest Intent. One cannot be expected to put a great deal of effort into the Work unless there is a degree of FAITH that the Work will have an eventual Payoff. So Faith supports Intent. My problem with Traditional Christianity is that CONFIDENT INTENT (FAITH) is considered equivalent to BELIEF. Its not. We have Christians who know absolutely nothing -- the most Spiritually Ignorant People in the World -- and yet they make all sorts of Claims for their "Faith". They need to realize that just wishing for it, and even being certain that it is really out there somewhere, that all that STALLED INTENT, all that FROZEN POTENTIAL does not 'feed the kitty'. Christians need to seek until they find and they need to knock until it is opened. But Paul shut all that down by declaring that Faith was sufficient. The Early Church Father verfied the damage with quotable nonsense like "Faith is the Proof of Things Unseen". Faith was considered an end in itself. Satanic Sabotage of Christian Teachings.

Dear Chris

Your argument is that both words -- Faith and Belief -- mean the same thing. It is your point that categorical distinctions should not be recognized because most people are too stupid and intellectually blunt to see them. It appears you simply cannot rise up to the intellectual demands of my argument.
I am loathed to understand, how you, and you alone, are right and the rest of the population of this planet wrong, are you a complete moron. (yes you are)
the oxford english and the chambers english dictionary and thesaurus, all have faith, and belief, as cris presented it.
so according to you, all the lexicographers in the world are wrong, and you and your little known random (that says it all)house is right, come man get a life.

I am loathed to understand, how you, and you alone, are right and the rest of the population of this planet wrong, are you a complete moron. (yes you are)
the oxford english and the chambers english dictionary and thesaurus, all have faith, and belief, as cris presented it.
so according to you, all the lexicographers in the world are wrong, and you and your little known random (that says it all)house is right, come man get a life.

yes, where the Lexicographers assign the same meanings to two distinguishable words, then I am right in making the the distinction, and they are wrong to gloss them over.

I suppose we must conclude that Dictionary Publishers no longer have integrity and are simply out to please a largely retarded Public who would find a Good Dictionary too hard for them. But they suit you fine.

Leo : telling everybody your mr perfect again, we are not worthy, my lord god.
I bow to your superiority NOT
if there nothing on this planet you like, then leave it.

mis-t-highs, the english dictionary definitions are pratically irrelevant because the writings are in hebrew and greek *along* with its use in Christian theology. Faith may mean irrational belief in perhaps some other context, but I've never heard any Christian denomination or Church define faith this way.

Leo, is rather overreacting a bit. But definitions of faith and belief with theological context are given below.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm

if there nothing on this planet you like, then leave it.

Becarefull there, this one is a bit of a nut, he might just decide to take a few with him... :D

Rem; Rev. Jim Jones, Dave Koresh, well this nut is capable of something like them two lunatics..

:D

Godless

Okinrus,

Faith may mean irrational belief in perhaps some other context, but I've never heard any Christian denomination or Church define faith this way.

LOL, like they are going to admit they are idiots. Your perspective is as absurd as Hitler describing himself as assertively kind and compassionate.

LOL, like they are going to admit they are idiots. Your perspective is as absurd as Hitler describing himself as assertively kind and compassionate.

No, your post rests on a case made by assuming an erroneous definition that Christians don't believe. Faith is seeing with a different sense than reason. This could only be illogical if you believe that everything we know must be determined first by reason. That is an impossibility, however, because reason must based upon premise.

okinrus and you mate leo
according to the devils dictionary (ambrose bierce 1911)
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

Heh.. audible. :D

Humans should keep this in mind:
Religion and therefore faith AND belief are taught.

Okinrus,

No, your post rests on a case made by assuming an erroneous definition that Christians don't believe.

No it doesn’t. Not sure where you acquired that strange notion. I have no doubt that Christians believe what they claim it is just that their belief is irrational - it is belief without evidence and that is the definition of faith.

Faith is seeing with a different sense than reason.

Don’t be silly – it is believing something that can’t be known to be true. Religionists go to great lengths to show that faith is somehow magical or special or as you are trying to portray – some form of sixth sense – this is all because they have no evidence and, as frustratingly to you as that may seem, they have no choice but to be idiotic and believe anyway. They even try to show that faith is somehow divinely inspired or that their deities will reward them for being so irrational. To admit otherwise is to admit they have nothing, but their gullibility does not allow them to reach that point of recognition. Some go so far, like Leo, and try to convince themselves that faith means something else and they do not use faith, or try to argue that most dictionaries in the world are wrong – ludicrous.

Faith simply means believing without evidence – just accept it – that is what it means and it is not magical or special in any way – just illogical and irrational.

This could only be illogical if you believe that everything we know must be determined first by reason.

Why not? Either there is evidence to indicate something is true or one simply doesn’t know. No purpose is served by believing something outside of reason.

That is an impossibility, however, because reason must based upon premise.

And so…..? What is wrong with that? If you can’t form a valid premise (i.e. something based on evidence) then you can’t form a valid conclusion – one simply doesn’t know. That is perfectly acceptable.

And so?..? What is wrong with that? If you can?t form a valid premise (i.e. something based on evidence) then you can?t form a valid conclusion ? one simply doesn?t know. That is perfectly acceptable.

Evidence is different from the logical process. I think irrational means when we make a logical error. In this case it's rather different. Although we occasionally provide inductive evidence for the existence of God, we don't believe in God for these reasons. Instead, God reveals Himself directly to us, providing the evidence needed for that person. We cannot force belief or really for that matter choose, but we can allow this to occur, insofar as this is called choice.

Now all the inductive evidence God could putwithin his creation would not be enough to prove beyond all doubt He exists. If that were the case, His creation would be God.


Why not? Either there is evidence to indicate something is true or one simply doesn?t know. No purpose is served by believing something outside of reason.

Relying on inductive arguments based upon lack of physical evidence seem irrational to me for points noted above. Of course, if there's no God, there's no way you will ever be able to ascertain that God exists, so it's not irrational to hope that God exists. At least, then, we have hope that our knowledge of God would be completed. This is not to say that I cannot provide physical evidence. What it means is that for any miracle, you can always claim fraud, even when there's no proof of fraud.

Okinrus: (We cannot force belief or really for that matter choose, but we can allow this to occur, insofar as this is called choice. )

This is something new, call it civilization as for your theists past, people were burnt, murdered, jailed, for speaking against theist rhetoric. And religious dogma was FORCED on the threat of being killed, burnt, or sentence to jail. Aren't we glad now we are civilized?.

Okinrus: (Now all the inductive evidence God could putwithin his creation would not be enough to prove beyond all doubt He exists. If that were the case, His creation would be God.)

Geberish!! there's no evidence of god, inductive is merely your own feelings, and wish, hope that your doctrine be true. Objectively by using reason & logic you will come to the conclussion that what you belive now is mythology based on ancient mysticism.

Okinrus: (Of course, if there's no God, there's no way you will ever be able to ascertain that God exists, so it's not irrational to hope that God exists.) Lets call it a whim, a wish that that monstrocity you call god, exists, however it's irrational to believe in that which you don't even know what it is!. Hence your whole premise of believing in some ancient mistical god, is nothing more than ancient mythological taken a bit too seriously.

Godless.

Okinrus,

Evidence is different from the logical process.

Any valid logical premise is founded on a fact (evidence).
Logic is entirely dependent on facts.
There are no facts concerning the existing of a god.
It is therefore not possible to form a valid premise concerning the existence of a god.
To do otherwise would be in spite of logic, this is illogical (irrational).

Okinrus,

God reveals Himself directly to us, providing the evidence needed for that person.

There is no evidence to support that claim. We can also call this active imagination induced by religious indoctrination. This simple self-delusion is dramatically more credible than the requirement of an actual existence of an incredible all-powerful super being capable of creating whole universes.

Your claim is indistinguishable from fantasy. You have no credibility for any alternative.

Any valid logical premise is founded on a fact (evidence).

Chris, not always. For example, someone could choose an arbitrary premise just to show that a condition derives from the premise. As long as he or she uses a valid logical process from the premises, the statements derived from the premises are consistent.


There are no facts concerning the existing of a god.

This in itself is an error because it's an assumption.


It is therefore not possible to form a valid premise concerning the existence of a god.
To do otherwise would be in spite of logic, this is illogical (irrational).

Premises are by nature not usually provable; they are assumed. Hence, you could just well call a mathematician irrational because he or she assumes as premises things that aren't true in the physical world.


This is something new, call it civilization as for your theists past, people were burnt, murdered, jailed, for speaking against theist rhetoric. And religious dogma was FORCED on the threat of being killed, burnt, or sentence to jail. Aren't we glad now we are civilized?.

Godless, this rarely occurred. Besides, there are many examples of atheist doing these things and there are examples of theists doing the opposite.

Must you post FOUR times?

Godless, this rarely occurred. Besides, there are many examples of atheist doing these things and there are examples of theists doing the opposite.

I guess you've never heard of the crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, dark ages, et all evidence throughout history, and till present day. Gay bashings, murder of abortion doctors, Mc Veigh of Ocklahoma was a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST!!, need I go on?..

Atheist, no never. These people that you seem to be talking about, were not athiests, they were statists. That is they traded one form of MYSTICISM for another, instead of all knowing god, it was the all knowing government, society, etc.. Nevertheless they were not independent thinkers for these people gave up their rights to governments and or society. for a supposed common "good". The point is they were not atheists. It was ellegal for them to claim a religious devotion.

Godless.

I guess you've never heard of the crusades, witch burnings, inquisitions, dark ages, et all evidence throughout history, and till present day. Gay bashings, murder of abortion doctors, Mc Veigh of Ocklahoma was a CHRISTIAN TERRORIST!!, need I go on?..

Gay bashing does not occur too often, and the crusades were, in theory at least, justified because they were reclaiming conquered lands. The murder of abortion doctors seems signficant to the number of abortions.

McVeigh was not even Christian, as described http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.candiotti.otsc/ McVeigh was an agnostic when he committed the crimes


Atheist, no never. These people that you seem to be talking about, were not athiests, they were statists. That is they traded one form of MYSTICISM for another, instead of all knowing god, it was the all knowing government, society, etc.

The fact is that they did not believe in the existence of God, making them atheist. Whether they are called communists or statist does is irrevelant. I could only call Christians who do good Christians and that would be just as evincing of proof as your argument.


Nevertheless they were not independent thinkers for these people gave up their rights to governments and or society. for a supposed common "good". The point is they were not atheists. It was ellegal for them to claim a religious devotion.

What about the French Revolution?

okinrus: "Gay bashing does not occur too often,..."
*************
M*W: To what extent do you believe that "gay bashing does not occur too often?" If you think that "gay bashing" only means to kill a gay person, then I disagree. There is a range of discrimination that happens to gay people, male and female, the worst, of course, being brutally beaten to death. It happens more frequently than you might consider.
*************
okinrus: and the crusades were, in theory at least, justified because they were reclaiming conquered lands.
*************
M*W: If the lands in question had been conquered by those other than Roman Catholics, then they rightfully belonged to the captuers. For the RCC to go after conquered lands was just as evil as those who took them from the HRE.
*************
okinrus: The murder of abortion doctors seems signficant to the number of abortions.
*************
M*W: Once again, abortion is legal in the USA. Some states, like California, allow a fetus to be aborted at ANY stage of development. Kansas is another state whose laws are liberal for aborting fetuses. Texas, on the other hand, limits abortion availability to the 26th week but no further than that. I believe Louisiana doesn't permit abortion due to its high catholic population. New York maintains liberal views (and no governmental regulation) on abortion. The murder of abortion doctors has been traditionally performed by nut cases like Rudolph, et al. They are also known as "Christians." It's people like this who impose their religious beliefs on others who are outside the bounds of the law. I don't like abortion. Nobody does. But, it's a fact of life. Abortion is normally done when the fetus is still an embryo. Therefore, it couldn't survive on its own. I am opposed to abortion, even at the 26th week of gestation, because sometimes these fetuses LIVE! It is the doctor, then, who crushes the living, breathing infant's skull. Fortunately, as much experience as I have had in obstetrics and gynecology, I have never witnessed this personally. I feel if it had occurred, I would have done everything I could to save the baby. That is where my conscience lies as well as my love for motherhood and human life.
*************
okinrus: McVeigh was not even Christian, as described http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/06/11/mcveigh.candiotti.otsc/ McVeigh was an agnostic when he committed the crimes
*************
M*W: What McVeigh did was unforgiveable, but do you think that his agnosticism helped convict him?

M*W: To what extent do you believe that "gay bashing does not occur too often?" If you think that "gay bashing" only means to kill a gay person, then I disagree. There is a range of discrimination that happens to gay people, male and female, the worst, of course, being brutally beaten to death. It happens more frequently than you might consider.

I've never seen someone beat up someone who was gay. I don't think it happends to often; someone cannot tell on the street whether someone is gay.


M*W: If the lands in question had been conquered by those other than Roman Catholics, then they rightfully belonged to the captuers. For the RCC to go after conquered lands was just as evil as those who took them from the HRE.

The Pope received information that Christians being brutally killed, so he sought to free the lands of Islamic control.


M*W: Once again, abortion is legal in the USA. Some states, like California, allow a fetus to be aborted at ANY stage of development. Kansas is another state whose laws are liberal for aborting fetuses. Texas, on the other hand, limits abortion availability to the 26th week but no further than that. I believe Louisiana doesn't permit abortion due to its high catholic population.

I thought the judges ruled that it was unconstitutional to forbid a women to exercise her rights.


New York maintains liberal views (and no governmental regulation) on abortion. The murder of abortion doctors has been traditionally performed by nut cases like Rudolph, et al. They are also known as "Christians."

It does not seem to be related to the religion that these people belonged to. They simply believed abortion was murder and that killing an abortion doctor might decrease the number of abortions.


It's people like this who impose their religious beliefs on others who are outside the bounds of the law. I don't like abortion. Nobody does. But, it's a fact of life.

You mean death.


M*W: What McVeigh did was unforgiveable, but do you think that his agnosticism helped convict him?

What McVeigh did could be forgiven. I'm not sure what you mean by "agnosticism helped convict him."

okinrus and you mate leo
according to the devils dictionary (ambrose bierce 1911)
FAITH, n.
Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.


Exactly! Faith cannot be the End of Religion. So, when Paul convinced the Church to impose Faith as the End and Goal of Religion, it was effectively to Satanize the Church... or at least to seriously stunt its growth toward a Realized Spirituality.

To assert that Faith is the goal of Religion is simply to surrender to the logic of the skeptics that Religion is utter nonsense. It gives up any notion that Religion can be founded on objective and concrete results.

Christ prophesized that the Church would be taken down this misguided direction. In the Parable of the House built upon Sand He was describing the Church built upon Faith.

Yet, with the Catholic Church, in the knowledge of the verified Miracles of the Saints, even up into Modern Times, we have a Belief that is built upon the Rock of Intellectual Certainty.