1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who Claims Authority?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by cardero, May 24, 2006.

  1. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380
    I'm still wondering how I could prove that my mother loves me, logically speaking.

    There are many things in life that we "know" that are "true" that do not admit to much examination using logic and empiricism.

    And here's some more thread-fodder, I suppose: Why is it there are a few collections of "scriptures" that inspire millions over millenia to believe in them, yet philosophers, while they also contain a share of wisdom and have some influence on humanity, in no way approaches the influence of religions?
     
  2. Booko

    Booko Deviled Hen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    18,523
    Ratings:
    +1,380


    Is it really "many" religions that do this? It's been a common strain in Christianity, but one that is diminishing. It's found in Islam today, but not in Muhammad's words or actions. I'm not sure about the position or history of Zoroastrianism in that regard, though if the book of Daniel is to be believed, the Zoroastrian king of Persia recognized Judaism as a valid religion. I've not know the Eastern religions to be particularly exclusive. Native American beliefs don't seem to be either. Um...so is that really "many"? Or were you talking about many denominations within one religion?

    I would not agree that everything I need is in the Bible. For one thing, my AC is out, and I lost the pages that tell me how to fix it. :D It is enough to tell you how to live a good life and be of benefit to the world and humanity, not to mention how to keep out many forms of trouble.

    I don't see how that nullifies God's omnipotence and authority, as much as it points out something about how many of us do better connecting with God if we have an earthly link to work from.

    I see no benefit in assuming that God should tell me directly, considering I speak to my teenagers directly and they only hear what they want to hear sometimes. So how are adults so much different? God can speak directly to our spirits all the time (and I believe He does), but that doesn't mean our hearing is not impaired by the spiritual cotton balls of ego we stuff in our ears sometimes.

    otoh, if we have some form of earthly focus, be it a person or a text from that person, then we at least have something to measure our ideas against. Of course, this wouldn't work at all if you don't believe the person is legit in the first place.

    It also doesn't work very well as a form of parenting, because eventually the parent is not there and no one is looking and you think, well gosh, I won't get caught and it's of benefit to me, so why not?

    I would argue that's why the few Messengers that we get from time to time are always opposed by the religious authorities in the time when they appear. Opposition is not proof of authenticity, imo, but lack of opposition is an indication that there isn't much of a message being delivered.

    Would you settle for one who points out that if you play with fire, there's a possibility you might get burned? I agree that positive reinforcement is the better option, but the reality of human life is that negative reinforcement is sometimes necessary. Not that I'd go so far as to eternal damnation. I never could figure that with a loving God.

    It is also a pronounced message in all of the major religions, though in some cases that message has been somewhat lost of late. It's the very purpose of my religion. Without that message, we don't really have a reason to be here now.
     
  3. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    Hello Cadero
    I appreciate your review and comments. Can you expound upon what you mean by deeply reflective?

    Vandr
     
  4. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    Thank you for clearing that up. I hold no anamosity toward you but even though it is not what you meant, you did emply that my writings had no value.

    Vandr
     
  5. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    Yes, Will be PMing you shortly.
     
  6. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    You misinterpreted what I meant by acquire. A person can acquire traits and attributes either directly by their own choosing or indirectly as a result of those choices.

    Unlike what I call the Linus syndrome, I sincerely believe that faith in the divinity of Jesus Christ unto power is acquired only by personal revelation from the Holy Ghost after sufficient humility, effort, and prayer are demonstrated. You can talk, compare, learn, and pursue knowledge at a temporal level all you want but it can never grow beyond being temporal knowledge. Until you receive something confirmed to your spirit by the Holy Ghost there will always be a level of doubt that will hinder faith's ability to manifest itself with authority.



    Evidence can be a matter of debate, conjecture, illusion, deceit, and a host of other things that can discredit it weather intentional or not. I make this clear in my book series "Faith and Evidence"

    Real faith comes from knowledge not evidence. The Holy Ghost can instill knowledge in you so profoundly sure that you cannot deny it. You cannot explain it but you cannot deny it. I have experienced this more than once.


    You are right, God does not instill faith, He instills knowledge by the Holy Ghost. It is by this sure knowledge that faith is supported and given power to be used effectively.


    Clearly God has given man truth. It is man that fouls it up and muddies clear water. If God were to remove the need for Faith by giving everyone a sure knowledge it would have two disastrously eternal effects.
    First, This whole temporal probation would be pointless. We are here not only to learn and grow but to prove where our devotions lay. To take away our need for faith is to give birth to devotion born of greed and not love. That was Lucifer's idea for which he wanted to usurp all the Glory from God.
    Second, and more importantly, Lucifer was cast out of the presence of the Father for denying God's Holiness and Glory. He was able to do this because he had no need of faith. His knowledge of God was absolute. To remove the need of faith from mortal man is to put him in the position to be able to do that same thing. We all should be eternally grateful that we have not that ability.



    On this we almost completely agree. Pure knowledge from the Holy Ghost is powerful and given only in quantities sufficient to be effective at accomplishing its purpose while maintaining a person's need for faith.

    Even the first presidency of the LDS church has stated (I need to paraphrase) that any time a person ceases to seek knowledge and then have that knowledge confirmed by the Spirit of God through fasting and prayer before accepting it is not acting with wisdom.

    That is not to say that you need keep pestering the Lord with the same questions. Once you know you by personal revelation that you are on the sure path and your faith is strengthening in ways you cannot explain - you can take larger and larger bites of knowledge from that source before needing to take it to the Lord. Additionally, the gift of the Holy Ghost can and will, if you have been given that gift, be your constant companion, comforter and guide every minute of every day. I believe that there is no excuse for failure.

    Vandr
     
  7. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Ah, you took my "not interested" as a vindicitve condemnation. It was never meant as such.
     
  8. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    Thank you for the clear up NetDoc

    Were Good!

    Vandr
     
  9. kassi

    kassi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Ratings:
    +19
    I haven't read all of the post, so if I say something that someone else has already said, then it is nice to have someone to agree with.
    Lets go back before christ and the new covenent. There was kingship which only came through the line of Judah and there was the priesthood which only came through the levites both of them had specific jobs. Some of these on occasion were also prophets, but not always. so in other word being one or the other did not automaticly give them the sole right to speak for God.
    The priesthood was not specifically for speaking for God but speaking to God for the People, Making intersession through offerings and sacrifices.
    The king was the head of the people his kingdom he had sole authority over the people, to rule, to reign to Judge. Within the limits of God.
    But there was never one specific Group appointed that only the word of God would be spoken through, Within the Israelite tribes. But out of all the tribes of the world salvation only came from the Jews . The Samariten womem spoke to Christ about this saying: The jews say: that only in Jerusalem is where one ought to worship and Jesus replied saying:the hour cometh when neither in this moutain or in Jerusalem shall you worship the Father. Ye worship what ye know not we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. But the Hour cometh and now is when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in Spirit and truth.
    What did he mean Salvation is from the Jews? For they are the ones that the Christ came through according to the flesh.
    Their is only one name Given by which we must be saved. Jesus. Not mormon or Jehovah witness or catholic or baptist etc.
    Paul the Apostal said : Php 1:15 Some preach christ out of envy and strife others out of Love.
    Php1:18 what then? that in every way whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is Proclaimed; and therein I rejoice, yea and will rejioce.
    After the crucifiction of Christ, It was no longer the jews only that could speak the word of God. Every believer became apart of the ministry.
    Its all about him( Christ Jesus}

    All I have to say to those who think that they alone have the Authority: Get off yourself and do not hinder the Gospel of Christ.
     
  10. kassi

    kassi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Messages:
    156
    Ratings:
    +19
    Satan appears as an angel of light (understanding). All I see is alot of people pulled away from the one and only thing that matters. they add to the Gospel of Christ they hinder the Gospel of Christ. they cause people to stumble from the word of faith. they seek to exalt themself above the others. they cause confusion.
    They will not escape the Judgement of God. For we will all stand before the Judgment seat of Christ.
     
  11. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669

    And you most certainly have the right to believe that and you will forever have my respect for that belief but you are going to need to turn that belief into a Truth or an Untruth before you can field acceptance for it. From my perspective everyone seems to have the same things. Most people have faith, many have beliefs, some have inspirations that claim to come from a BEing called God. Authority cannot be assured if everyone has the same thing. I have been through the Bible and the Book Of Mormon but I haven’t been through other scriptural texts. Just because I have been through these particular texts does not give me the authority to speak for GOD over the religions that utilize these books. I would need a wider understanding of what I
    K(NOW) today compare it to everything that has been written about God, make sure my testimony holds up against all those other perceived inspirations and then if I had the desire, go forth and claim that authority. If I started today, I wouldn’t be alive to receive or accept such an honor. Now I cautioned you about the Linus Syndrome (I like the concept of the Linus Syndrome) because I believe this is something you are practicing yourself. You may be using bound books to contain your scriptural beliefs but you are ignoring the many thousand of other books that have been written professing Godly inspiration. Are you not picking and choosing the scriptures and interpretations that you feel spiritually comfortable with and basing a great majority of these writings towards your beliefs, faith and traditions? Is there anything wrong with this practice? Nothing that I can perceive (many religions do this). Is it a reason to declare authority to speak for God? I don't believe all the requirements and all the knowledge has been met.

    I am glad you used the word “something”. The feeling is confirmed with me, the Source I am keeping an open mind about until the messages become validated. You also have to realize that I do not have a body of councils or scholars or congregation members to bounce my inspirations off of. I also haven’t been afforded the luxury of centuries that some religions have had to adapt, configure and unlock their scriptural understandings. But both of those excuses I gave you should not lessen the experience or deafen the word just because of who I am or because I have not received them in the same fashion or the same pattern or the same time frame as other prophets proclaiming messages from Gods. I am just one person who has had a very personal (yet enlightening) experience. If I had wanted to promote this “authority” actually become a speaker for GOD I would still be met with disbelief, prejudice, possibly persecution and definitely scrutiny. An example of this experience was confirmed in the “Women In The Preisthood” for my short post. Though I wasn’t offended or slighted, I also wasn’t considered nor was the messenger who gave me this message respected. You also have experienced an encounter of this kind in this very thread. The reason both of us were not taken seriously or considerately, was not any animosity toward fellow members but as a result of the way that some people express and display their faith and how they receive other people’s faith. I believed these are actually hindrances and missed opportunities to understand what people believe, why they believe, where they get their beliefs from and how much faith they season their beliefs with, (if they are using any seasoning at all).

    Let’s do that, then. I can use all the temporal knowledge I can get my hands on. This is where my power and authority will come from, not from how much faith I devote to certain knowledge but how I have reasoned it, compared it and contrasted against other beliefs and other previous or current understandings. If the message is strong enough (regardless of where it came from) it should be able to stand on its own. People should be able to perceive the belief (not the faith) for what it is. This I believe would be a good indication of where the message came from.

    Well then remove the faith and concentrate on the belief. You are not going to need faith to conclude the belief to a truth or an untruth. In fact as a few members have demonstrated here, you won’t even get the message heard if you display such faithful tactics. You are not going to be able to convey and offer spiritual confirmation to another individual as empirical evidence to support your claims and beliefs (spiritual confirmation is also not accepted as evidence in Federal Courts or State Law). If this were the case, then after the two years that I have been debating on RF, many members would have listed Patrickism as their religion of choice in their public profile. That is why I have dropped the faith. It doesn’t support my claims, it doesn’t advance my beliefs closer to the truth and it hinders the message once people realize where it came from. In fact, the only time I quote directly from GOD anymore is when:
    a) He can say it better than I could (give credit where credit is due)
    b) I am going head to head with someone scripture for scripture. This is most likely to remind people that though I have procured these messages myself and that they may differ from what they have “heard” or been told, I basically have the same thing they do, a claim from a BEing called GOD that I documented in a book. The only difference besides the message is that I choose not to put faith in these books.

    Faith is not going to bring me any closer to deciphering the truth or obtaining any credibility or authority for these messages.
     
  12. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669


    Real beliefs do as well. You also should not be aspiring to real faith, what you want is Real Truth. The moment you try to convey or convert people over to your faith (and with some religions, this is indeed what is all about) you are going to encounter resistance, especially if they have had another faith ingrained in them previously. How do you expect to meet with this resistance? What other way is there to get people to accept your faith short of pounding a book over their head? Why would you want someone to accept your faith?

    At one moment, I also thought this was true.
    But the moment that someone else denies it, you have to inspect why someone is having a hard time accepting it or why you are easily accepting of it and/or whether the knowledge is fool proof and comes from a reliable source. Many individuals are not qualifying themselves for these situations. Often I have confronted people about their beliefs only to watch faith abandon them, their eventual retreat and removal from such a discussion and then come back recharged to promote yet another of their faithful beliefs and have this process start all over again.

    As have I but comforting yourself that it is the Holy Ghost should be guarded and questioned. Convincing others is difficult still.

    Faith is a very personal expression and not many beliefs are original. When you pass away, any faith you applied to a belief goes with you and only the original belief remains (proven or disproved).

    Well then that’s what I got too, a book full of knowledge and what this entity claims is the truth. Do I personally have the truth? No, I essentially have a claim from a BEing who believes He is GOD and a book full of beliefs that not only do I have to understand and comprehend but also I have to prove to truth if I ever expect others to take me seriously about the source. I have what you have, minus the faith...and the churches....and the followers....and the rich history.....and........

    I would prefer just the truth from GOD but I must respect His belief to let everyone come to their own understanding which means no pressure or judgments from Him when I do fail to accept His truths or when I am not intelligent enough to unfold His understandings.


    And don’t ever forget that. Acquiring knowledge is like searching for your favorite music or that one comic book issue you were looking for to complete your collection or solving that one problem in that level of a video game you have been playing around with (I must admit, I enjoy the hunt). Anyone who has something to teach me that I do not know or understand will always find a willing student within me. The accumulation of knowledge is a privilege and one that cannot be sustained or acquired in one lifetime. One cannot K(NOW) everything.

    The GOD I converse with does not care for my devotion but seems to hold an interest in my well BEing and to make sure that I complete everything that I have set before me in this physical lifetime. If this GOD was concerned about my devotion, this loyal and dedicated service would best be served where He is, not where I currently reside.

    There are only two practical purposes in which I can see a need for faith:
    1) When you can’t agree on any other appropriate name to call your daughter.
    2) As a literary device to further a story along (which some people, I have experienced, can carry too far).

    To take away the need for faith is to give birth to the freedom of believing and proving or disproving beliefs without any personal barriers or physical obstructions. Faith (as well as doubt) is the first step to abusing this freedom. Faith is belief abuse. A belief does not require your personal expression of faith, the belief just wants to know what you expect to do with it. Are you going to prove or disprove it or are you going to put in on the shelf until more evidence or understanding comes along or are you going to lay it down because you found another belief to replace it? Don’t cherish your beliefs, cherish the truth.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    This may sound strange but belief has nothing to do with truth or untruth. Belief is simply how you react to what you understand even if you understand nothing at all. It is akin to saying "if you fail to prepare, you prepare to fail" All I can do is care enough about others to do something more than stand idly by and watch as they flounder grasping for something that I know, by personal revelation, that I have to offer. I certainly cannot prove it to you beyond your questioning. What you will or will not accept is up to you alone but it is my understanding that failure to try to give others what has been given to me would place me under greater condemnation. From who much is given much is required.

    Yeah, when I coined it in Faith and Evidence I thought it was kind of cute:p . It put my point across
    Cardero - You miss my point. Sure I am using a precious few books upon which to base my belief but that belief has a very strong foundation. That foundation is personal revelation from the Holy Ghost.

    I once worked with someone who was very competent at coming up with ways of solving problems but He couldn't solve his way out of a wet paper bag. Why? Because he attacked a problem from every conceivable angle and tried to apply every solution he could think of - All at the same time. The result was always chaos. It would have been better for him if he sought the council of those who knew more than he did and asked them to impart of their wisdom.

    Pursuing knowledge is always a good thing. It helps with your ability to communicate with others and that is important if you are going to share what you know with them. Bbeing a "jack of all trades and master of none" will leave you in the dust of those who focus on the quality of knowledge and not the quantity.

    I have sought wisdom from God and, because He has answered my many prayers, I believe I am on the right path to the point that I will give the majority of my effort to staying on it. In short, "If it isn’t broke, don't try to fix it."

    You have a Heavenly Father. He will make you part of His congregation if that is what you truly want.
    Centuries of belief will never validate error. It simply makes the maze of rhetoric more sophisticated and harder to sift through.
    You are correct but you need to carry it further. I would remind you that faith is not the source of knowledge or something that you can apply to knowledge. It is the result of knowledge. Far too many people try to have faith without truth. That is like trying to have faith sufficient to pick apples off of a non existent tree.
    BINGO! - And when that message is confirmed by the Holy Ghost it cannot fall!
    You do not control faith, you cannot remove it any more than you can create it. It is a manifestation of knowledge and understanding based on truth. I respect you pursuit of truth. Your faith is simply a gauge to let you know the strength of your position. Use it!
    He will always be able to say it better, you just have to ask with a sincere heart and the listen.
    We already agree on that. Depending on faith to increase wisdom and knowledge is doing it backwards (The Linus Syndrome :D )

    This post is dragging on so I will refrain on commenting on your second post for now other than to say for the most part I agree with what you say other than to address two points of view you have.

    First: Sure knowledge given by the Holy Ghost cannot give room to doubt under any scrutiny or confrontation. It is sweet knowledge, pure and unshakable.

    Second: God does care about our devotion because it is by that devotion that we pursue the great plan of happiness and become worthy to live in His presence.

    Vandr
     
  14. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic

    Nor do I..

    I believe so, but it's not something I certainly do so only as a blind faith, but a reasoned belief based on what we do have. It's all I can muster.

    You would? Not me.
    It sounds like you are saying that if you trust anyone, then I should trust everybody.

    If Christianity had anyting to do with peoples abilities we would have burned it to the ground long ago. It is simply used to have all (regardless of bias, knowledge, etc.) to tune in to the proper channel through something tangible.
    It is a beefy topic. It can be as simple as you want it to be (just trust) or as complicated as hours of looking at historical writings. But if you struggle with trust you will find yourself looking into it deeper and longer.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I think you have hit the heart of the issue Victor. It is a matter of trust. Frubals!

    lunamoth
     
  16. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    I believe that what cardero was saying is that believing in a doctrine just because some have long temporal credentials centered around it is about as wise as placing your faith in someone who is an authority on the Star Trek Series and decides to create a religion around it. I would most heartedly agree.

    Vandr
     
  17. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    11,887
    Ratings:
    +4,173
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    Actually, it's logically very simple. You DON'T know that your mother loves you, because you can't experience your mother's heart and mind, which is what would be required for you to know this. What you do know is that your mother BEHAVES as though she loves you, and that you have taken this behavior as convincing evidence that she does in fact love you.

    "Love" defines an attitude, and the behavior that follows from that attitude. Of the two, we can only personally experience the latter when the love in question is someone else's.

    Logic is not limiting our ability to know the truth. It's just that sometimes the truth is that we can't know something. Note that the definition of knowledge implies direct personal experience of that which is being known. And we can't always have direct personal experience of that which we wish to know.
    Some truths are very attractive, and some are not. Thus, we are far more willing to accept some truths (often even when they are not actually true) than we are willing to accept others (even when they are evidently true).

    The willingness of people to believe that something is true is in no way evidence that what they believe to be true is actually true. All it's evidence of is that the proposition is attractive to them.

    Human beings are frightened by what they don't know, because a human being's greatest survival mechanism is his ability to control his environment through his intellect. Human beings also have very powerful imaginations: so powerful in fact that we can imagine a reality so fully and clearly that it will become reality for us even though it does not correspond with actual reality. When we mix this very powerful imagination with our fear of the unknown, what we get is "God". "God" is the word we use to describe an anthropomorphized mystery that we fear, and that we want very badly to gain control of.

    Thus, the frightening mystery of the volcano becomes the "volcano god" (as we anthropomorphize it), and then we try to control that mystery (now a humanized "god") by appeasing it with things that we humans find especially appealing: such as virgins. Which is why throwing virgins into volcanos (or similar sacrificial behaviors) has been such a popular human activity throughout human history. But of course this all says nothing about the actual existence of any volcano gods, except in the minds of frightened and highly imaginative human beings.

    Later, instead of inventing a "god" to embody every different frightening mystery in our world, we created one "God" to embody them all simultaneously. And then we offer this mega-God sacrificial bribes in an effort to control it's behavior toward us (and subsequently control all those things that we don't understand how to control ourselves, and so fear).

    This cessation of fear through the illusion of control is very attractive experience for we humans, who feel truly threatened by the fact of our own ignorance. And this is why the idea of bribing the gods to control the unknown is so appealing to us even though it's illogical and irrational.

    Philosophers are trained to set aside emotions like fear, and focus only on the logical and rational aspects of human experience. And this is why the results of the philosophical endeavor are often not popular.
     
  18. cardero

    cardero Citizen Mod

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    11,110
    Ratings:
    +1,669
    I would point out that one who is considering adopting a belief would have a relative amount of control about how much faith they apply to this belief but as many substance abusers will tell you, the addiction eventually controls you.
    People who convert to another religion not only find that they have to dismantle their old faith but reconstruct it to match their new beliefs. Whether someone believes faith is trust, belief or hope there is a conversion rate they will have to follow. The same faith one puts into one religion will not be the same faith (quality or quantity) one puts in the next one.
    I would argue that it is a matter based on belief. Do you believe that there is a need to practice faith in the face of undeniable truth?
    A person’s conviction to a belief is not a reliable measurement of strength or truth, especially when this person encounters another person who has a larger and more incisive gauge.
    I found that it is more encumbering to bring my faith an ego into such discussions with GOD. It impedes the understanding process. I usually leave these things behind when conversing with Him. When I am done, I am allowed to pick them up if I still have a need for them.
    Victor, it seems that you have an impressive amount of knowledge about your respected religion. If you had the time, desire, motivation to accumulate the thorough knowledge of another religion would you approach this understanding with a wholehearted trust or with a certain skepticism?
    I have nothing against trust (it is the first thing I extend to all physical entities I encounter) but when you have several who feel that they have all been entrusted to messages from a BEing called GOD and these messages are as different as they are significant, it is very difficult to place your trust and comprehend who is more trustworthy. If trust was all that was required then it would be okay to associate one self and qualify for many religions. Anyone who attempts such a feat will eventually find they will lose trust from all the individual religions that they have associated themselves with. As easily as trust can be given, it can also be quickly removed.

    Again, I must confess, by rights there are several religions that I have come across who are very educated in their respected texts (there are even many non-religious people that I have met that have an impressive knowledge about the Bible) but I (as well as these religions) cannot conclude that these Biblical authors were authorities to speak for God or that it is even God that was speaking to them. Mostly because of their interpretation and their application of faith.
    Trekkies (which I really believe is a valid religion) often claim authority for their respected knowledge and beliefs as well. Some can explain all the schematics and technology of each individual Starship from each separate Star Trek series but even they cannot agree who was the best Captain of all the Star Trek series.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Evandr2

    Evandr2 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    141
    Ratings:
    +19
    Hello Cardero
    We seem to be confusing our individual definitions of faith. You are equating the term with a religious structure and I see it as a result of that structure.



    When a person changes religions they are changing their belief structure to some degree. A person need not give much thought to changing their level of faith because the resulting change in faith occurs as a result of that change in thinking and knowledge. Faith is like a thermometer. You cannot change the reading on a thermometer without changing the temperature of what it is reading. Conversely, you cannot change the temperature of something by artificially changing the reading on the thermometer.

    Trying to change belief by altering faith is like thinking you can change the chemical composition of a compound by running its odor through a filter to make it smell different.

    The quality of knowledge determines the strength of faith which indicates the level of validity associated with belief. You seem to like separating the terms "faith" and "belief" as two different considerations when in actuality the two are inseparably connected. The strength of faith is measured by the quality of your knowledge.



    Again, faith is not practiced. The guidelines of doctrine are practiced. Faith is the strength of your position based on the validity of your belief.



    I agree. However, conviction is a personal consideration. I would never base my conviction upon someone else’s. Their conviction may cause that I search their paths but I am solely responsible for my convictions.



    Jesus understood the importance of faith unto power. When peter saw the Lord walking on water he asked the Lord to bid him come to Him. Peter actually began to walk on the water because his knowledge that it was possible was strengthened by the literal presence and example of Jesus. When fear and doubt started to overshadow that knowledge, Peter's faith weakened and he began to sink.

    Matthew 14:25-26

    And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and, beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
    26 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt? (bolding added)

    Faith in Christ, the Priesthood, and the Gospel is power when our understanding and conviction has been sufficiently strengthened by the sure knowledge that only the Holy Ghost can bestow. The apostles had no need of the Holy Ghost because of the literal presence of Christ.

    It is up to us to search out an understanding of the Gospel and prepare ourselves to receive revelation from God via the Holy Ghost. In order to cast aside your faith, you must cast aside your belief. I will say it one more time. "The strength of your faith is given power by the truth contained in your understanding. That is what determines your belief."

    What you say you believe is not nearly as important to you as what you actually believe.

    Vandr


    P.S This is a marvelous exchange of thought. Thank you
     
  20. Quiddity

    Quiddity UndertheInfluenceofGiants

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Messages:
    19,626
    Ratings:
    +1,275
    Religion:
    Catholic


    Frubal worthy question. :)
    In short, yes I would. A major difference is that some hearts are more willing to trust, while others are not. The unwilling die wanting the answers, the willing have realized that we all die not knowing all the answers.
     
Loading...