Faith vs. Truth

[Imagican]

Just curious. What is MORE important, faith or the truth?

Is it ENOUGH to simply exhibit faith or do we NEED to find the TRUTH first?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Evointrinsic]

My personal view on it would be sticking with truth first. Or at least have a decent probability (im not hinting towards anything!). I think faith in something could potentially be dangerous. for you guys to understand, take any other religion for an example. I'm sure many of you think it is dangerous to have faith in Krishna or (if you think buddha is a god) Buddha when the truth is already there to see.

 

[destiny]

The Word of God gives us a foundation of truth. It tells us who God is and what His message is for mankind; without this truth our faith would be subject to lies.

Send me a photograph of yourself and I will know what you look like, without it I could only imagine how you look. My knowledge would have no bases of truth.

 

[JoJo]

Just curious. What is MORE important, faith or the truth?

This question implies that truth and faith are not compatible. I believe in God; therefore, I have faith that God's existence is the truth. In my heart, it is the truth, and that is faith. I believe that one can have faith in the truth, regardless of whether other people don't view it as truth. The truth is truth no matter who believes in it or doesn't believe in it.

 

[Imagican]

What happens when one's interpretation or that taught them by others ISN'T the truth, yet that is where your faith lies?

Of what consequence is faith upon such a foundation?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[shad]

What happens when one's interpretation or that taught them by others ISN'T the truth, yet that is where your faith lies?

Of what consequence is faith upon such a foundation?

Blessings,

MEC

Such faith is built on sand.

.

 

[JoJo]

What happens when one's interpretation or that taught them by others ISN'T the truth, yet that is where your faith lies?

Of what consequence is faith upon such a foundation?

Blessings,

MEC

This is exactly why I never taught my kids that Santa Claus was real.

 

[Imagican]

And that's a GOOD thing. I still find it amazing that SO MANY, so called; 'Christians', see NO HARM in LYING to their children about a ficticious fat man that flys through the air and shimmys down chimneys to leave their hearts desire behind. You may be amazed to see the lengths that MANY will go to justify this charade.

The lesson learned? How to LIE to one's loved ones? Seems the ONLY valid one to ME.

And shad, you are ABSOLUTELY correct. But what can be EVEN worse, what about the worship of 'false gods' that so many are practicing today?

For it is apparent that ALL the teachings of ALL the denominations CANNOT BE correct. Some teach that Jesus is 'an angel'. Others that it's OK to be gay. Still others teach that it's OK for women to BE the LEADERS of the church. OSAS, infant Baptism, worshiping statues, give SO that you will receive, where does it end?

Now, how MUCH leaway is possible before the entire scenario takes on the persona of Satan? For Satan was the MASTER of lies. All it takes is to read of the deception in the garden to PLAINLY SEE that Satan is SO GOOD at what he does that he rarely even HAS to actually lie. He is able to use PIECES of the truth to CREATE deception.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

You forgot to add evolution in your list Imagician ;)

 

[Imagican]

Unlike many that are unable to successfully discern the TRUTH of evolution, I have no such 'hang ups' due to mistinterpretation or training.

Man HAS evolved over time. We can plainly SEE that man's jawline has shrunk, his brain GROWN, and MOST have become LESS hairy.

We can SEE evolution taking place DAILY in the interacial relationships that are MORE accessable today than ever before. Do you DENY that the 'mixing of genes' between different races IS evolution?

Now, as far as 'man coming from apes'? Hardly. What I propose is that MUCH of evolution concerning animals of the past and their relatives alive today offers NO diversion from scripture. Since scripture simply offered the most BASIC of the story of creation, there is MUCH ROOM for understanding that was NEVER offered in detail. God NEVER told us HOW He created, just that He used the elements of this planet to do so.

So, many will shun such information for the sake of what their CHURCHES teach them. For there is NO OTHER reason to deny what we have PROVEN through investigative discovery. There WERE animals on this planet that NO LONGER EXIST as they were THEN. And SOME of the animals that existed THEN still have relatives that live TODAY. This is NOT going against ANYTHING offered in The Word. This is simply ACCEPTING what is PLAIN to SEE. No subtle LIES, just pure and utter FACTS. Take it for what it's worth or remain in denial. That is up to the individual. But igorance does NOT truth make. Simply offering denial to the obvious does NOT make it CEASE to exist.

So John, am I to assume that you do NOT accept evolution in any of it's forms?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

So John, am I to assume that you do NOT accept evolution in any of it's forms?

I accept only micro-evolution (Variations within a species)There is simply no evidence of a common ancestor of all life. Darwins tree of life is not found any ware in the fossil record,if i were using a botanical illustration it would be blades of grass with blades sprouting but not connecting with any other animal not a tree of life. This is what we see, so this is what i believe.

Take a peak at the "Cambrian" explosion.

 

[Imagican]

So, you believe that 'dinosaurs' have NO common ancestors TODAY? Hmmmm........And you believe that the fossil records are ONLY 9000 years old? That, in fact, the EARTH is only 9000 years old?

John. What 'reason' do we have to believe in a LITERAL 'six day creation'? For the NT plainly offers that a day to God can be as a thousand years and a thousand years a day. This in itself offers that the USE of the term 'day' in Genesis is MOST LIKELY a sybolic use to indicate 'time periods'. For there is NO REASON, (considering the vastness of variety), to contain 'creation' in six LITERAL days. That would mean that EVERYTHING that happened BEFORE the creation of man HAPPENED in a matter of DAYS literally. Come now, you don't really believe that all the fossil records PREDATING mankind were created, died, and became fossils in two or three days? How would you account for ANY 'infant or adolescent fossils if this were the LITERAL case? For HOW would ANY pre-historic animal OR plant have the opportunity to MATE, gestate, etc,,,,,,,,offspring in A DAY or TWO?

Or, do you believe that Noah was still living with T-Rex or Saber Toothed kitties?

While I am a FIRM believer in 'creation', I also believe that much of what has been offered in scripture concerning creation was offered in the means of the limited understanding of the TIME that it was offered. That Moses would certainly have been confused if minute details of creation had been offered. Sufficient was to offer that God CREATED and that it was done in 'time periods'.

For to take Genesis literal for NO OTHER reason than to believe in a 9000 year old earth makes NO SENSE. And we can PLAINLY see that much of what is offered THROUGHOUT the Word IS Symbolic.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

But John, let us ADD evoution to the list. It was by NO MEANS meant to be complete, but we'll add evolution to it as well.

The point was meant to bring to mind that faith in that which is NOT truth is basically WASTED faith. But that does NOT take away from the FACT that many have such faith. Insistant upon beleiving in that which pleases the flesh and ignoring that which is able to fortify the soul in edification.

How often do we see those that are ADAMENTLY able to defend that which is NOT truth. Choosing to go to ANY lengths in their insistance in following what they WANT to believe more than that revealed through Word or Spirit.

We could argue all day on the literal trasnslation of Gensis and whether it was meant to be taken thus. But that really isn't the purpose behind this thread.

What I hoped to explore is the relation of faith and truth. How EASY it is to have 'faith' in ANYTHING that one chooses regardless of it's being truth or NOT.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mutzrein]

Just curious. What is MORE important, faith or the truth?

Is it ENOUGH to simply exhibit faith or do we NEED to find the TRUTH first?

Blessings,

MEC

Are we made righteous by knowing the truth or are we made righteous by faith?

 

[stranger]

Just curious. What is MORE important, faith or the truth?

Is it ENOUGH to simply exhibit faith or do we NEED to find the TRUTH first?

Blessings,

MEC

Are we made righteous by knowing the truth or are we made righteous by faith?

hi mutzrein,

By faith.

We are made 'white washed walls' knowing the truth but righteousness is by faith. That said, it is not as though faith and truth can be set up in opposition to one another. I would put the problem this way -- if one seeks God one seeks truth (because God is truth) - but if one seeks truth, the seeking has been divorced from God and becomes an exercise devoid of faith.

blessings:

 

[Imagican]

Just curious. What is MORE important, faith or the truth?

Is it ENOUGH to simply exhibit faith or do we NEED to find the TRUTH first?

Blessings,

MEC

Are we made righteous by knowing the truth or are we made righteous by faith?

I believe we are made 'righteous' by 'faith IN the truth'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

So, you believe that 'dinosaurs' have NO common ancestors TODAY? Hmmmm........And you believe that the fossil records are ONLY 9000 years old? That, in fact, the EARTH is only 9000 years old?

I am not able to place a date on the earth but it is not billions of years old.

John. What 'reason' do we have to believe in a LITERAL 'six day creation'?

Why not? Is it that hard to believe that God created in 6 days?

For the NT plainly offers that a day to God can be as a thousand years and a thousand years a day.

I believe we talked about this before, if a day to God can be as 1000 years then it only took him 5000 years to make the earth.

This in itself offers that the USE of the term 'day' in Genesis is MOST LIKELY a sybolic use to indicate 'time periods'

Except that it says over and over again "evening and morning" which indicates 1 day.


.

For there is NO REASON, (considering the vastness of variety), to contain 'creation' in six LITERAL days. That would mean that EVERYTHING that happened BEFORE the creation of man HAPPENED in a matter of DAYS literally. Come now, you don't really believe that all the fossil records PREDATING mankind were created, died, and became fossils in two or three days

Np they were the result of the flood. Read my signature.

? How would you account for ANY 'infant or adolescent fossils if this were the LITERAL case? For HOW would ANY pre-historic animal OR plant have the opportunity to MATE, gestate, etc,,,,,,,,offspring in A DAY or TWO?

Read your Bible, the flood killed them, they did not all die and get fossilized in 2 days

Or, do you believe that Noah was still living with T-Rex or Saber Toothed kitties?

Yep.

While I am a FIRM believer in 'creation', I also believe that much of what has been offered in scripture concerning creation was offered in the means of the limited understanding of the TIME that it was offered. That Moses would certainly have been confused if minute details of creation had been offered.

awesome! you knew Moses

Sufficient was to offer that God CREATED and that it was done in 'time periods'.

Its easier to just trust God and his word as is.

For to take Genesis literal for NO OTHER reason than to believe in a 9000 year old earth makes NO SENSE. And we can PLAINLY see that much of what is offered THROUGHOUT the Word IS Symbolic

I do not accept it on "blind faith" i accept it due to the overwhelming evidence for the creation, a young earth and that evolution has not taken place as depicted.

Evolution is supposed to be a undirected process, How can God direct an undirected process to make man?

Did you know even the NT speaks about Creation and the flood?

 

[Imagican]

John,

You have not heard me argue whether there was or wasn't a flood. Being a FIRM believer in The Word, there is NO DOUBT that there WAS 'a flood'.

And I don't NEED to KNOW Moses to reallze that his understanding of the natural world would have been miniscule compared to what has been LEARNED in the past five thousand years. The mere FACT that you and I are communicating through an internet with a computer is but ONE example of the results of this learning.

My offering that it's stated in the NT that a day is like 10,000 years was NOT meant to be taken LITERAL. I believe that the REASON that this statement was offered was NOT to STATE that 'a day is THE SAME AS' but to plainly SHOW that Time of NO ESSENCE to God. One that is NOT mortal is NOT confined by TIME.

So, with all the ability of man to paint and draw, we have NO drawings or paintings of dinosaurs. We have all kinds of paintings of food animals, but none that would depict dinosaurs EATING men. Hmmm.....

And your defense in the use of 'dragons'? Come now. Dragons? Fire breathing dragons? Flying, fire breathing dragons? Hmmmmmm..................I don't believe we've found that fossil record yet.

Once again, evening and night would BE the discerning factor of a time period that a day was used to symbolize. Not surprising that such description would be used.

John, I have no actual desire to debate the AGE of the earth or HOW it was formed. Suffice to say is that I am a FIRM believer in 'creation'. God CREATED the Earth and the life that exists upon it. What I have tried to point out is that the basic chain of events as depicted in Genesis is by NO means COMPLETE. Wasn't MEANT to be. In this we can rest assured; It was a MUCH MORE complex event than described in Genesis.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[John]

To each His own

 

[Imagican]

If evolution happened, then death was widespread before man evolved. But if death preceded man and was not a result of Adam's sin, then sin is a fiction. If sin is a fiction, then we do not need a Savior.

I don't know what significance this statement holds so far as MAN is concerned. Of COURSE there was DEATH before Adam and Eve disobeyed.

I believe that you or whoever penned this statement are confused as to what 'death' really MEANS. The PHYSICAL BODY that we possess at this time CANNOT last FOREVER. We are PLAINLY told that at a point in the future we will be given NEW bodies and PERFECT. You surely can't believe that they will be the SAME as what we possess NOW?

If there was NO death, there would have been NO SOIL, NO OIL, NO fossils that PREDATE MAN by immeasurable time.

So, the problem with such a statement lies in misunderstanding from the onset. For Adam and Eve to have EATEN required the DEATH of the plants that they ate. So obviously the death brought about from sin was SPIRITUAL DEATH for MANKIND. That is the REASON that we DO NEED a Savior. To bring us BACK in to the fold of our Father's House.

Blessings,

MEC