Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Faith Sharing Area => Topic started by: Sassy on July 21, 2016, 12:24:16 PM
-
Some of the posts make me wonder how people really define God and Faith.
Why some posters appear to have not even the basic knowledge of how faith works and how and whom God is in the present tense and nature of things in the lives of believers.
It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things:-
-
'God' is that which is invoked and 'faith' is persistence in a belief.
-
'God' is that which is invoked and 'faith' is persistence in a belief.
How was God invoked/ What is there to persist about in faith?
-
Faith is the excuse people use when believing something for which there is insufficient evidence.
If you have evidence for something then faith is not required
By faith we please God it is through Christ and the Spirit we know God.
Faith expects that which God promises.
The only way to know God is to show faith as Abraham. He believed what God told him and he was seen as righteous.
Berational, was that your take on these things or your view of Christians?
-
How was God invoked/ What is there to persist about in faith?
Depending upon the 'God quality' which the individual seeks to invoke methods might include propitiation ceremonies, confession and atonement for sins, sacrifice, prayer, meditation. I suggested that 'faith' is the persistence with a belief e.g. beliefs are tested by events which can cause some to lose faith. Some project faith testing and tempting events on to a Satan figure and feel they have to 'fight the good fight'.
-
Moderator
Note a number of posts have been removed as inappropriate to the Faith Sharing Area. As a reminder to members, please be careful to check on which board a topic appears.
-
Depending upon the 'God quality' which the individual seeks to invoke methods might include propitiation ceremonies, confession and atonement for sins, sacrifice, prayer, meditation. I suggested that 'faith' is the persistence with a belief e.g. beliefs are tested by events which can cause some to lose faith. Some project faith testing and tempting events on to a Satan figure and feel they have to 'fight the good fight'.
God quality?
God is Holy there is no quality just truth.
-
God quality?
God is Holy there is no quality just truth.
What does 'Holy' mean? Isn't it a quality and isn't it a quality which some people aspire to? What is 'truth'? Isn't it a quality which some people seek? Some say God is Love and they seek to invoke and express that quality of love. When Jesus was on the cross, it was alleged that he called out to 'El'. As far as I recall 'El' meant power i.e. 'My power, my power why have you forsaken me'. Power is another divine quality which some aspire to. There are many other qualities projected on to a divinity which followers seek to invoke into their lives or the lives of others like life, mercy, health, peace, wisdom.
-
God is Holy
That statement is completely devoid of meaning. Look up what "holy" means.
-
BR defined faith as
... the excuse people use when believing something for which there is insufficient evidence.
I would like to suggest that this is a seriously flawed understanding of 'faith'. Before my father died in 1982, I had faith in his decision-making abilities and his approach to life because I had seen both in action and bearing fruit. I would use the same criteria for faith in anyone else, including a deity. Oddly enough, from a purely scientific way of thinking, there was probably limited evidence to support the faith I had in my father, but experience provided the evidence I needed.
If you have evidence for something then faith is not required
One needs faith, even when 'evidence' exists; in fact, even when 'evidence' exists, one has to have experience and understanding to validate that evidence.
-
That statement is completely devoid of meaning. Look up what "holy" means.
The Hebrew/biblical word that is translated 'Holy' in English is qodesh which means 'apartness, sacredness, separateness, set-apartness'; so Sassy's comment makes more sense than most utterances on this board. It certainly makes more sense than your response.
-
BR defined faith as I would like to suggest that this is a seriously flawed understanding of 'faith'. Before my father died in 1982, I had faith in his decision-making abilities and his approach to life because I had seen both in action and bearing fruit. I would use the same criteria for faith in anyone else, including a deity. Oddly enough, from a purely scientific way of thinking, there was probably limited evidence to support the faith I had in my father, but experience provided the evidence I needed.
Just noticed this if the FSB so I will remove that comment.
-
The Hebrew/biblical word that is translated 'Holy' in English is qodesh which means 'apartness, sacredness, separateness, set-apartness'; so Sassy's comment makes more sense than most utterances on this board. It certainly makes more sense than your response.
... except that she was implying that 'holy' is not a quality. The same word is used in the Bible in association with Holy Land, Holy Sabbath, Holy water, Holy man, Holy angels. I seem to remember that it is used to translate the Greek word 'Hagios' in the New Testament and that hagios also implies purity, another quality which some hope to aspire to.
-
What does 'Holy' mean? Isn't it a quality and isn't it a quality which some people aspire to?
Not a quality because God is Holy. He did not become Holy he has always been Holy.
God would be the definition of Holy had the dicitionary been working from the basis that God sets the pattern and definition for Holy.
People cannot aspire to be Holy it is a fact that people become the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus and therefore a holy people set aside for God whose sin is forgiven.
Anything set aside for God can be given the name Holy. Anything from God as Christ clearly was Luke 1:35 King James Version (KJV)
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
So God is Holy and that which comes from him or belongs to him becomes Holy.
What is 'truth'? Isn't it a quality which some people seek? Some say God is Love and they seek to invoke and express that quality of love. When Jesus was on the cross, it was alleged that he called out to 'El'. As far as I recall 'El' meant power i.e. 'My power, my power why have you forsaken me'. Power is another divine quality which some aspire to. There are many other qualities projected on to a divinity which followers seek to invoke into their lives or the lives of others like life, mercy, health, peace, wisdom.
Appears made up? DO you not know ELI is no EL...
Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani
Truth is God..
-
That statement is completely devoid of meaning. Look up what "holy" means.
Look up where the word HOLY came from.
-
Origin of word: HOLY
Old English hālig, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch and German heilig, also to whole.
-
Appears made up? DO you not know ELI is no EL...
Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani
Truth is God..
I think you will find that 'El' was the noun and the suffix 'i' indicated the possessive pronoun 'my'. 'El' emphasises power and might and was in widespread use in the middle east to represent 'God' The same expression 'Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani ' you will see in the Hebrew version of Psalm 22:1. In Mark 15:34 it seems that the Aramaic version 'Eloi, Eloi' was used and translated into Greek as 'o theos mou' .... the God of me.
-
I think you will find that 'El' was the noun and the suffix 'i' indicated the possessive pronoun 'my'. 'El' emphasises power and might and was in widespread use in the middle east to represent 'God' The same expression 'Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani ' you will see in the Hebrew version of Psalm 22:1. In Mark 15:34 it seems that the Aramaic version 'Eloi, Eloi' was used and translated into Greek as 'o theos mou' .... the God of me.
You were the one using EL and the fact is the NT is ELI as I pointed out.
It makes not difference to the fact you used the wrong one.
-
Hebrew definition of word meaning Holy.
◄ 6918. qadosh ►
Strong's Concordance
qadosh: sacred, holy
Original Word: קָדוֹשׁ
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: qadosh
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-doshe')
Short Definition: holy
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from the same as qodesh
Definition
sacred, holy
NASB Translation
consecrated (1), Holy (8), holy (50), Holy One (44), holy one (3), holy ones (6), one is holy (1), saints (2).
Holman Bible Dictionary
Holy
Concordance
Nave Topical Bible
Holy Spirit
Holy Place
Holy Day
Scofield Reference Index
Holy
Holy Spirit
Thompson Chain Reference
Holy
Holy Spirit
Holy Spirit, 6S, 7S, and 8's O
http://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?n=2819. 1991.
-
You were the one using EL and the fact is the NT is ELI as I pointed out.
It makes not difference to the fact you used the wrong one.
No, I was explaining the difference between 'El' and 'Eli'. Incidentally, cutting and pasting sections from a concordance doesn't lend itself to "It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things" in your opening post. If it is your view that 'qadosh' means sacred, holy then all you have to do is explain what the words 'sacred' and 'holy' mean to you and how you define 'God' and 'faith'.
-
No, I was explaining the difference between 'El' and 'Eli'. Incidentally, cutting and pasting sections from a concordance doesn't lend itself to "It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things" in your opening post. If it is your view that 'qadosh' means sacred, holy then all you have to do is explain what the words 'sacred' and 'holy' mean to you and how you define 'God' and 'faith'.
Don't you feel that a little insincere?
How can I see HOLY as anything but applying to God?
It is self explanatory... It is if you know it applies only to God and the things of God.
-
Are WE things of God?
-
1... Don't you feel that a little insincere?
2...How can I see HOLY as anything but applying to God?
3... It is self explanatory... It is if you know it applies only to God and the things of God.
1... No, why should I?
2... Only you can answer that question, but in doing so, if you want to share it with others, then it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by 'holy' and 'God'.
3... If it is self explanatory then there doesn't seem much point in your opening post i.e. "It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things" .
-
1... No, why should I?
2... Only you can answer that question, but in doing so, if you want to share it with others, then it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by 'holy' and 'God'.
3... If it is self explanatory then there doesn't seem much point in your opening post i.e. "It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things" .
I already know my God and faith and you were still insincere and deliberately ignoring the definition of the Hebrew belief of what Holy is.
You failed to observe the obvious and are deliberate in trying to cover it.
Not sincere and totally unacceptable when replying to myself.
-
I already know my God and faith and you were still insincere and deliberately ignoring the definition of the Hebrew belief of what Holy is.
You failed to observe the obvious and are deliberate in trying to cover it.
Not sincere and totally unacceptable when replying to myself.
This reply is a classic example of why some discussion sites degenerate and fail. Each of those sentences are about me, or your opinion of me, which is not what the topic is about. The topic is this: "Define God and Faith... It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things." If you already know your God and faith then it should be easy for you to define 'God', 'faith' 'Holy' and 'sacred' and continue the discussion. If, on the other hand, you are only interested in an ego trip or contest then you are not really 'interested in the different views' of others, and the discussion might just as well be terminated.
-
This reply is a classic example of why some discussion sites degenerate and fail.
What a ridiculous excuse.
Sites fail because of attitudes like your own.
Each of those sentences are about me, or your opinion of me, which is not what the topic is about.
Nothing about you only about what you have done... EASIER to tell the truth.
The topic is this: "Define God and Faith... It would be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things." If you already know your God and faith then it should be easy for you to define 'God', 'faith' 'Holy' and 'sacred' and continue the discussion.
The idea is for OTHERS to define God and Faith... AS it say on the tin.... be interesting to see the different views and discuss the way we all see these things.
However the obvious facts of the Christian faith is not what we are discussing. Not my personal knowledge of those facts about the Christian faith. Hence my replies have been on-topic and have been straightforward in letting you know this.
If, on the other hand, you are only interested in an ego trip or contest then you are not really 'interested in the different views' of others, and the discussion might just as well be terminated.
As above in my replies you cannot move the goal post now. EGO trips is ridiculous and absolutely NO WAY you could actually make that valid. Ekim just admit you got it wrong and if you cannot do as it says on the tin, DON'T reply. You have no valid argument in your false accusations. Seems your ego is the one with the dent in it.
Truth is you haven't a clue how to reply to my thread and the posts I have made because you simply do not have the ability to understand them. I don't mind that but bringing it to a slanging match is more your thing not mine.
As I said you make all the false accusations you want I know what I wrote and clearly why I wrote it. Would have been better if you had just moved on quietly. I have nothing to prove and as for ego trip. The evidence of the way I am treated here and as you join in with them... shows there can never be a ego trip here for me.
I want truth not ear ticklers...
-
BR defined faith as I would like to suggest that this is a seriously flawed understanding of 'faith'. Before my father died in 1982, I had faith in his decision-making abilities and his approach to life because I had seen both in action and bearing fruit. I would use the same criteria for faith in anyone else, including a deity. Oddly enough, from a purely scientific way of thinking, there was probably limited evidence to support the faith I had in my father, but experience provided the evidence I needed.
One needs faith, even when 'evidence' exists; in fact, even when 'evidence' exists, one has to have experience and understanding to validate that evidence.
That is so very true, it's all about having a relationship with God which transcends any differences in translation and interpretation of scripture, which we will all argue forever. I think that is what Sassy means, hoping she doesn't mind me mentioning her in this context, when she says she "knows God". The knowledge and understanding is something inside a person and that is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
-
In response to the OP:
As I have no direct experience of any god then I am left with no alternative than to listen to others as to how they conceptualise their god*, and attempt to glean from these views some sort of generalised picture of what the idea of 'god' is contained therein. I confess this is no easy task, as, as I see it, so many influences(cultural, historical, personal) have to be taken into account. Hence I am quite happy to leave it others to attempt their own description of their own particular god version. If you are talking only about a Christian God, then the same applies, except that I would try to limit my views to those expressed by Christians of widely different persuasions as much as possible, as these are the persons most likely to 'experience' their own particular version of this Christian God. Again, all I am really left with are generalities, although ones which involve Christ, salvation and sin.
As I understand it people have religious faith for a variety of reasons, sometimes intellectual but mostly associated with powerful feelings and experiences. For me, a person who experiences such religious faith is a person who has a strong(sometimes overwhelming) feeling of conviction that their particular faith is essential for themselves. Those feelings though are often translated into convictions that some sort of 'truths' must necessarily flow from their faith, and, given that they are seen as 'truths', then they are often seen as necessarily applicable to others, whether the 'others' accept them or not.
* Of course this does not discount information gleaned from many other sources which might include people of faith/no faith.
-
That is so very true, it's all about having a relationship with God which transcends any differences in translation and interpretation of scripture, which we will all argue forever. I think that is what Sassy means, hoping she doesn't mind me mentioning her in this context, when she says she "knows God". The knowledge and understanding is something inside a person and that is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
The trouble with that is that there have been many instances of people who believe that they are being guided by a divinity and have committed atrocities on the strength of it. I should think that it would be better to err on the side of caution when it comes to claims to know God and consider the saying 'Beware of false prophets, who are like wolves in sheep’s clothing, Good produces beauty, harmony, completeness, and bad produces dis‑ease, dis‑harmony, partiality. Know them by what they produce.' There are theologians like St Thomas Aquinas who say 'We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.' which puts a dampener on 'define God'.
-
In response to the OP:
As I have no direct experience of any god then I am left with no alternative than to listen to others as to how they conceptualise their god
Absolutely - it is very difficult for someone with no religious beliefs to try to define God and faith - you can only respond to other people's descriptions.
-
Absolutely - it is very difficult for someone with no religious beliefs to try to define God and faith - you can only respond to other people's descriptions.
Very difficult when the entity is declared ineffable.