Why the necessity of "faith"?

[mondar]

First, I notice your devaluation of Christs shed blood. Nowhere does the scripture equate the blood of bulls and goats with the blood of the savior.
Second, your statement that God should just give forgiveness without any blood payment for the sin degrades the holiness of God. God may allow Satan to enter his presence to accuse the saints, but God is still absolute in his holiness. We are to be holy as he is holy.

The "blood of bulls and goats" was supposed to point towards Christ. . . .the whole "shedding of physical blood" as some sort of atonement for something that is SPIRITUAL, in the whole scheme of things [sin], . . . this is where I find a problem with it. There is nothing spiritual about human or animal blood. The PHYSICAL is nothing more than compound elements. SIN, and its effects are supposed to be eternal, so I do not see WHY physical blood should have played any significant role in eternal matters.

Do you have a reason to compartmentalize the physical from the spiritual?

***They are related when God placed a curse upon Adam for his sin. Death became a spiritual matter at the "Original Sin" of Adam. Both physical death and spiritual death came upon the entire human rance because we all received the curses being "in Adam."

***Christ, as the 2nd Adam, also brought together the physical and spiritual at the cross. The cross is far more punishment then the physical shedding of blood. Christ was forsaken by the Father. Christ suffered the wrath of God at that time. It was also spiritual.

Since the physical and spiritual came together in the curse of Adam, on what basis do you claim that the physical and spiritual should be separate at the cross?

I know nothing about "Stepford Wives." I agree that in the resurrection, our inner nature and outer physical bodies will be changed. In fact the scriptures say exactly that. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, we will all be changed. So the fact that we are "no longer who who we are." Is exactly what the scripture teaches. So what is the point?

But i think your point is that we must be changed in this life to be able to believe. The change in this life is called regeneration. The point of regeneration is that we are no longer slaves of sin; we are no longer dead in sin; we are able to believe. This is not the issue. This has to do with the biblical doctrine of election (John 6). We can do nothing about election, we can not even know who the elect are in this life. Election is not the issue, it is the revealed commands of scripture are that we are all responsible to repent and "believe."

Stepford Wives is a movie where people are stripped of their humanity and now can only serve their master. There is nothing left of the individual, and they are nothing more than robots [actually ARE robots in the movie]. It is what the "master" wanted in his wife, . . . total subserviance (is that a word?), total control, no chance of being left, cheated on, or mistreated.

That is a quick synopsis of the movie, . . . but it can be applied to Heaven, in many ways. If we no longer are able to sin, are we even who we are? Will we be US in Heaven? A part of who we are includes our propensity TO fail, to LEARN from our mistakes. To grow, to prosper....... Who will we be, in Heaven?

Angels in heaven are sinless and they are not robots. I think you present a false caricature of sinlessness in heaven.

 

[Orion]

Well, . . . when you speak of "Adam" (or when I, for that matter), I am speaking figuratively, . . . since I don't see the story, as written in Genesis, as being a literal story. But yeah, I seperate the physical from the spiritual. If it is a spiritual matter, then a purly PHYSICAL act seems inconsequential to that which IS spiritual. The physical is always temporary, yet for some reason, a "payment for sin", for that which AFFECTS eternity, is placed on a physical and temporary thing, . . . "blood". This goes back to my own questions about "why a person's spirit can't accept Christ when separated from the body". If a spirit wants to accept truth, yet is no longer allowed, that seems vandictive. The physical is nothing but chemicals held together, nothing more, . . . yet Christianity wants to bond it so much with the eternal (spirit), . . .and that makes no sense to me.

 

[mondar]

Well, . . . when you speak of "Adam" (or when I, for that matter), I am speaking figuratively, . . . since I don't see the story, as written in Genesis, as being a literal story. But yeah, I seperate the physical from the spiritual. If it is a spiritual matter, then a purly PHYSICAL act seems inconsequential to that which IS spiritual. The physical is always temporary, yet for some reason, a "payment for sin", for that which AFFECTS eternity, is placed on a physical and temporary thing, . . . "blood". This goes back to my own questions about "why a person's spirit can't accept Christ when separated from the body". If a spirit wants to accept truth, yet is no longer allowed, that seems vandictive. The physical is nothing but chemicals held together, nothing more, . . . yet Christianity wants to bond it so much with the eternal (spirit), . . .and that makes no sense to me.

So let me get this.... You do not believe the scriptures, but you believe that man is an eternal spirit. And that makes sense to you? Why? On what basis do you believe that there is anything beyond the physical?

*** Note, I might not be available for a week or two after this. Possibly tomorrow for a little. I am not sure of my schedule for the next week or two.

 

[Orion]

If something in the Bible doesn't make sense to me (and I have written a book on those things, BTW), then I won't be "blindly believing by faith". As for the spirit being eternal, . . . I don't have evidence for that either, . . . I may blink out of existance, one day.

Having said that, I hope that "the spirit being eternal" is true, . . . at least outside of religious dogma, . . . that which was placed into text by men, regardless of whether they claimed the words to be divine or not. Some of them may have been, . . . but no, not all the words in the Bible are "all from God".

 

[shad]

If something in the Bible doesn't make sense to me (and I have written a book on those things, BTW), then I won't be "blindly believing by faith". As for the spirit being eternal, . . . I don't have evidence for that either, . . . I may blink out of existance, one day.

Having said that, I hope that "the spirit being eternal" is true, . . . at least outside of religious dogma, . . . that which was placed into text by men, regardless of whether they claimed the words to be divine or not. Some of them may have been, . . . but no, not all the words in the Bible are "all from God".

Orion, remember to follow the whole context of the Bible. What is God's characters?

.

 

[Orion]

I don't know God's TRUE character, . . . and really, no one else can fully know either. The words found in the Bible were still written by man. It is written by man FOR man, . . . in MAN'S attempt to understand that which would be so above us that it would likely be misunderstood by them on a grand scale. To believe that GOD could be understood within the context of human language COULD be considered laughable, if one really thought about it. I think that God is so far above our thinking, thus men could only place their own thinking into the mix, thus muddy-ing it up and outside of actuality.

 

[shad]

I don't know God's TRUE character, . . . and really, no one else can fully know either. The words found in the Bible were still written by man. It is written by man FOR man, . . . in MAN'S attempt to understand that which would be so above us that it would likely be misunderstood by them on a grand scale. To believe that GOD could be understood within the context of human language COULD be considered laughable, if one really thought about it. I think that God is so far above our thinking, thus men could only place their own thinking into the mix, thus muddy-ing it up and outside of actuality.

Everything you say above is all true, that's why it is important to follow the whole context of the Bible when you interpret or trying to understand.
God's character: He is love, Just, holy, righteous, all knowing, perfect and all other good stuff. If He is not all that I dont believe He is God.

.

 

[Orion]

I hear what you're saying, shad, . . . but for me, I can't openly agree that everything written in the Bible, even within context, are words/actions that God would condone. Because it is one of those "faith issues", . . . and because of my own personal problems with "faith", that's were I'm at. Having said that, my "lack of faith" is, by no means, a rejection of God. Just an honest attempt to explain how I view things.

 

[shad]

Orion,

I think I can make you understand what "faith" is, so please bear with me.

You see, I dont understand original Scripture, Hebrew nor Greek language but I still have faith in God He will give me all the knowledge that I have to have in order to be His servant. God gives everyone all kinds of gift so you dont have to understand the whole Bible to be His faithful servant. You just use all the gifts God gave you. Dont be so hard on yourself. Just do your best to serve Jesus and you are faithful. Our main mission is to be Jesus' faithful servants.

.

 

[mondar]

I don't know God's TRUE character, . . . and really, no one else can fully know either.

I agree in the sense that man cannot go out and sit under a tree and come up with a philosophy of God. God must reveal himself for man to know anything about God.

The words found in the Bible were still written by man. It is written by man FOR man, . . . in MAN'S attempt to understand that which would be so above us that it would likely be misunderstood by them on a grand scale.

Man wrote the bible, but only because he was moved by the HS of God (2Peter 1). The bible is not man's trying to reach God in his thoughts. I agree that man is totally incapable of accomplishing any such thing. Romans 1 is clear that this is where idolatry came from as man tried to remake God in mans own image. This whole thought process is merely the grand rebellion of man as man suppresses the knowledge of God (See Romans 1:19-20). The bible is written by men only by the agency of the Holy Spirit. So then it is God stooping to speak to men.

To believe that GOD could be understood within the context of human language COULD be considered laughable, if one really thought about it. I think that God is so far above our thinking, thus men could only place their own thinking into the mix, thus muddy-ing it up and outside of actuality.

Your statement makes God only transcendent. God is transcendent, but he is also intimate. God can never be understood in his totality because he is an infinite being. This does not mean that I would agree that we can know absolutely nothing about God. The bible might have revealed a mere speck in the ocean of the knowledge of God, but it is completely sufficient for our spiritual growth and salvation in our present time on earth. Afterward, in eternity, we will learn more and more of God and neer exhaust the glory and knowledge of God. God is transcendent in that sense, but not in the sense that God is incapable of making anything about himself known to man in this life.

So then, human language can never tell us all about God and his glory. Not even eternity will do that. This does not mean God cannot reveal what is sufficient for us in this life through human language and the scripture.

*** Later!

 

[Orion]

Gon can most certainly give us what is sufficient. I just can't place all my faith in a work of man, [again] regardless of whether or not a man said it wasn't FROM him, but God. I see that as that man's opinion. There are several places in the Bible that strike my spirit as "not from God", and if the spirit communicates in that way (for those who are honest/earnest), then I can only trust my feelings on those sections. The "fruits of the spirit", the "golden rule", the story of "the prodigal son", or "the good samaritan", . . . GOOD parts! :yes Not all part, in my opinion, are.

 

[shad]

Gon can most certainly give us what is sufficient. I just can't place all my faith in a work of man, [again] regardless of whether or not a man said it wasn't FROM him, but God. I see that as that man's opinion. There are several places in the Bible that strike my spirit as "not from God", and if the spirit communicates in that way (for those who are honest/earnest), then I can only trust my feelings on those sections. The "fruits of the spirit", the "golden rule", the story of "the prodigal son", or "the good samaritan", . . . GOOD parts! :yes Not all part, in my opinion, are.

If you are doing your best to be Jesus' servant, you will have confidence in what you are doing and you should follow your instinct in discerning what is right things to do. You should not let anyone judge you. That instinct is from the Holy Spirit, so trust Him. The key is doing your best to serve Jesus.

.

 

[Orion]

Will do, shad. . . . . .that is my ultimate plan. Thanks.

 

[shad]

Will do, shad. . . . . .that is my ultimate plan. Thanks.

May God bless you mightily for the Lord!!!