![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 29 to 53 of 89. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 10, 2004, at 8:39:19
In reply to Re: Lou's response to rayww, posted by rayww on November 10, 2004, at 0:47:16
> Lou if I felt you were sincere we might enter a discussion, but you have given me reason to mistrust your intent. I am near certain you are attempting to trick me into stating that in order to enter the highest degree of exaltation one must be baptized.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down or jump to conclusions about them. If you don't feel it'll lead to a discussion, maybe just don't reply?
Bob
Posted by 64bowtie on November 10, 2004, at 9:54:39
In reply to Re: If not, how do you get faith?, posted by Jai Narayan on November 1, 2004, at 22:18:54
> why is faith not definable by us?
<<< Thanx Jai. I thought I had accepted Dictionay Dot Com as the authority for this question, and we did/do define faith in any of its many iterations. When someone cannot see faith as an abstract only available to the minds of mankind, I am willing to sit, and wait, and see if perception and perspective might update.....
New list: centipedes, squids, giraffes, emus, lice, and halibut, don't connect with the concept of "faith". They may act out in a "faithly" type pattern of behavior, but they don't acknowledge us when we tell them about "faith". They are never heard or witnessed explaining faith to any other member of their species. I remain unconvinced that faith is innate and not learned. So the issue is learning. Which [nouns] learn in the abstract and which ones don't? [nouns] => people, places, things, ideas.
Rod
Posted by rayww on November 10, 2004, at 23:21:24
In reply to Why is faith not definable??? » Jai Narayan, posted by 64bowtie on November 10, 2004, at 9:54:39
I think it would be good for your community to try to define faith, but there isn't a lot of participation here.
So......you don't think animals have faith. Where does instinct come from? I always thought that the only one of God's creations that wasn't totally obedient to Him was man. Plants, animals, rocks, they all reverence and obey God. Aren't they all part of the balance of nature? Nature balances itself out in most cases, and all creatures are here for a reason. If you're not a cat how do you know they don't have faith??? I don't know how it feels to be a cat, but I know cats have feelings, and if they are capable of having feelings, why aren't they also capable of faith?
Those who believe in God also believe that all love emenates from God, even love posessed by and for animals.
http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/2/19#19http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=gen+6%3A7&search.x=31&search.y=10
I'm not trying to invent a topic here, or pull you away from your definition of faith. Maybe I suffer from lastwordism, along with crossbrained bipolar, and emotional dyslexia.
Posted by 64bowtie on November 11, 2004, at 13:54:18
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable??? » 64bowtie, posted by rayww on November 10, 2004, at 23:21:24
> So......you don't think animals have faith. Where does instinct come from? >
<<< As I have posted in the past, instinct is from the process portion of the DNA chain molecules of every living thing. Process Genes make up about 70% of the chain molecule. Originally thought to be "junk" genes, tremendous progress has shed new light that a great amount of behavior can be biased by this process region. Free-Will for humans perhaps originates in this region. God did a good job of laying us out so we could persevere in this hostile environment. I see no connection to faith and instinct other than my faith that instincts work, ...good.
> If you're not a cat how do you know they don't have faith??? I don't know how it feels to be a cat, but I know cats have feelings, and if they are capable of having feelings, why aren't they also capable of faith?
><<< An intellctual "faith" can be induced. Cats do use their litter box when we induce the message consistently over time. Biblical use of faith as a concept requires that faith is an "inside-job", induced faith doesn't measure up to the Biblical use of faith for connection to that literary supreme being. I suspect that many children are abused yearly in the name of induction of faith. We as human adults can do so much better than that.
About cats, I draw the line at the fact cats don't teach each other abstractions. Mankind does. Please be clear, I am not saying feelings are only abstract. I do guarantee, however, any memory of a faith-initiated happenning that is connected to a feeling, can only be an abstraction of the experience.
History is never more than the abstract. Cats don't teach history to each other, but we do. Good teaching is a mix both inductive and deductive processes. It has been proven that higher primates are capable of deductive decision making. They don't teach each other strategy in the abstract. Our faith shines brightest when we trust the strategy to work in both the abstract and in real-time the same way.
I have faith that we are better off being able to distinguish what happenned then from what is happenning right now.
Rod
Posted by Jai Narayan on November 11, 2004, at 16:01:51
In reply to Why is faith not definable??? » Jai Narayan, posted by 64bowtie on November 10, 2004, at 9:54:39
Okay, I don't remember what I said.
The topic of faith has always been a mystery to me.
Such as: leap of faith...
whoa that sounds scary.
So in faith is there to be a tacet belief in somthing unprovable?
I like provable realities.
I hope this makes sense.
Jai
Posted by MKB on November 11, 2004, at 18:26:32
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable???, posted by Jai Narayan on November 11, 2004, at 16:01:51
Hmmm. "Provable realities." Somehow that makes me think of something you said about the U.S. elections on the Social Board.
Posted by verne on November 13, 2004, at 0:55:20
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable???, posted by Jai Narayan on November 11, 2004, at 16:01:51
Jai,
Faith is about the inexplicable, the unprovable, and the unseen. Where's my faith, if I knew the facts?
Faith, for me, is surrendering all that I know and see.
I still stumble along from one visible guidepost to another while reaching for the Way that says, "I must decrease."
verne
Posted by Jai Narayan on November 13, 2004, at 15:03:31
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable??? » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on November 13, 2004, at 0:55:20
coolie, kool verne.
I like that answer.
you are the best!
Jai
Posted by 64bowtie on November 13, 2004, at 15:55:02
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable??? » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on November 13, 2004, at 0:55:20
> Faith is about the inexplicable, the unprovable, and the unseen.
<<< Faith is acceptance of partial information, not a succombing bewilderment toward all information for the sake of magical outcomes.
> Where's my faith, if I knew the facts?
<<< We can never know all the facts, therefore we can bridge this cravasse with faith that the extrapolation of the facts we do know continue on toward truth even though we can't see the unfolding of the proof we desire.
First and foremost, faith is a tool... to an end.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on November 13, 2004, at 15:57:18
In reply to Re: Why is faith not definable??? » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on November 13, 2004, at 0:55:20
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2004, at 16:30:43
In reply to Re: Lou's response to rayww, posted by rayww on November 10, 2004, at 0:47:16
rayww,
You wrote,[...my understanding that the jews don't believe in {the} resurrection...].
Are you referring to a spacific resurrection? If so, could you specify the resurrection that you are referring to? If you could clarify this, then I could have the opportunity to reply accordingly.
Lou
Posted by verne on November 14, 2004, at 0:51:52
In reply to Faith is not bewilderment, posted by 64bowtie on November 13, 2004, at 15:55:02
When I say that faith is about the inexplicable, the unprovable, and the unseen, I'm not suggesting "bewilderment".
When I say that I believe in the "unseen", I am far from bewildered. In fact, I am encouraged and hopeful.
verne
Posted by Jai Narayan on November 14, 2004, at 10:50:54
In reply to Bewilderment?, posted by verne on November 14, 2004, at 0:51:52
I am so glad you are encouraged and hopeful.
I find myself in somewhat the same boat.
No organized religions for me.
But a deep and rich spiritual life.
I think the unseen and unknown is the most profound description of that which I look upon as the divine.you are inspiring verne
Posted by Jai Narayan on November 14, 2004, at 10:52:13
In reply to Faith is not bewilderment, posted by 64bowtie on November 13, 2004, at 15:55:02
gosh Rod what is the end?
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2004, at 11:22:22
In reply to Lou's response to rayww » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on November 13, 2004, at 16:30:43
> Are you referring to a spacific resurrection?
Yes Lou, your own. You will be Lou for eternity Lou.
Christ opened the grave. There was no resurrection before the atonement. Had it not been so, we would have remained in the grave forever. As in Adam all men die, as in Christ all are made alive. If Adam and Eve had not become mortal they would never have died, and we would not have been born. It is all part of God's plan, named the "Plan of Salvation"
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22as+in+Adam%22&search.x=31&search.y=10We have laws on earth that must be obeyed. Likewise, in heaven there are laws. Why would heaven be a place of confusion and no law? It is a place of order, Definition of order, "A place for everything and everything in its place" Perfect order. Perfect Law. Perfect Ordinances.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=done+decently+and+order&search.x=31&search.y=10We know the ordinances were in effect from the beginning of time. Abel talked with God and knew the ordinances, or why was he offering sacrifice? The ordinance of sacrifice was in similitude of the sacrifice of the Redeemer. It was to remind the people that Christ would come.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=abel+ordinance+sacrifice&search.x=31&search.y=10In the beginning of time, Lucifer was trying to destroy all righteousness. Greed, jealousy, and desire for power got the best of Cain. What's so different today?
How do we know that Christ opened the graves? Because there were many witnesses, and their accounts have been preserved by the gift and power of God.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=graves+open&search.x=31&search.y=10Why were baptisms preformed for the dead, if the dead raise not at all?
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22if+the+dead+rise%22&search.x=30&search.y=3
People of my faith believe that nearly all of the references to Christ's first advent were taken out of the Old writings, except for the words of Isaiah. Great are the words of Isaiah, it's all there if you can find it. Christ quoted isaiah more than any other OT Prophet.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=%22great+are+the+words+of+Isaiah%22&search.x=31&search.y=10You asked which resurrection I was referring to, and I hope I have answered this to your satisfaction, if not, to sum it up, the resurrection I am referring to is your own, and it is only made possible by and through Jesus Christ. You have always been and will always be you. One body, from spirit, to mortal, to immortal. You will never be anything other. You cannot come back as a frog, or as a princess, You are male, will always be male, but you keep on learning and progressing. Forever.
There is no end to learning.......One last ref. "If You could high to Kolob" 284
http://www.lds.org/cm/catalogsearchalpha/1,17929,4782-1-1,00.html#nullLink
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2004, at 20:09:56
In reply to Your own resurrection » Lou Pilder, posted by rayww on November 14, 2004, at 11:22:22
rayww,
Now that you have identified that the resurrection that you were referring to, that you wrote that according to your understanding the jews do not believe in, is the resurrection of [...your own....],you then write,[...it is only made possible by and through Jesus Christ...].
Could you clarify what you mean by {by and through} Jesus Christ? Could this statement be broken into two statements such as,{the resurrection is only made possible by Jesus Christ} and {the resurrection is only made possible through Jesus Christ}? If so, could you clarify what those statements mean.? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by rayww on November 14, 2004, at 23:58:23
In reply to Lou's response to rayww » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2004, at 20:09:56
By:
A long time ago when we all lived in heaven in one big family as spirit brothers and sisters there arose a bit of a problem. we loved it there and wanted to be able to stay forever and progress like our heavenly parents. You may have heard of the great war in heaven. http://scriptures.lds.org/gsc/cnclnhvn
We were there, and all those who have ever been born on earth accepted Christ's plan and fought the battle against Satan. Christ's plan was the plan of salvation (including resurrection) and it was created "by" Jesus Christ in the pre-mortal existancehttp://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Rev+19%3A10-21&search.x=30&search.y=9
Satan, also known as the devil or Lucifer, is an enemy of God and of all those who endeavor to do the will of God. He attempts to entice and tempt all men and women to do evil or wrong. He uses deception and the imitation of good to lead people away from God. He cannot force or coerce an individual against his or her will to do evil and follow him. His objective is to make all mankind miserable. He once lived in a pre-earth or premortal life in the presence of God before this earth was created. He rebelled against God and the eternal plan of progress and righteousness. He persuaded many others to follow his rebellion all of whom were cast out of God’s presence. They are damned in their development for they do not receive physical bodies. They work to influence and tempt those who dwell as mortals on the earth. All who are obedient to God’s commandments and follow the principles of goodness and righteousness are protected from Satan’s influences. The time will come when Satan will no longer have power over men and women, and his works will cease.
Through:
In order to qualify for eternal life in the presence of God, we would all need to be perfect like Him. As you know, none of us, no matter how hard we try, could never be perfect, and would fall short of our goal to return to live with God. Christ (first born spirit son of god) offered to come to earth and take upon himself our debt by suffering for all the sins of mankind in our behalf, feeling all the pain and grief, because he understood the problem, and loved us. He came to earth as the only begotten Son of god, the only one capable of performing an infinite atonement for our sins. He also came to show us how we should live in order to be happy. "Through" Christ means accepting Him, and activating the atonement in our personal lives by going through the procedure of faith, repentance, etc. It is not a free gift. It comes "through" the atonement. We have to become a part of it, it goes "through" us as we go through it.
http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,885-1,00.html
By and through Christ means the plan was created by Christ and the redemption was wrought through Him.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=wrought+redemption+christ&search.x=31&search.y=10http://scriptures.lds.org/bdc/christ (top frame)
Posted by rayww on November 15, 2004, at 0:26:37
In reply to Lou's response to rayww » rayww, posted by Lou Pilder on November 14, 2004, at 20:09:56
Although we shouted for joy, it was a very sad day when 1/3 of our brothers and sisters in heaven were cast out of God's presence. We may have had friends there. All heaven wept. I think it was a happy day for the plan, but a very sad day for the 1/3, never to ever have the privilege of body. Lucifer was a son of God too, as were all of his followers, male and female. I can't help but feel bad about the loss and betrayal. Maybe that's why we are so affected so deeply by loss and grief here. We have roots that go way back to those feelings. they must have really thought they would win, and still do.
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=son+of+the+morning+has+fallen&search.x=31&search.y=10
What was the other plan? Clever Lucifer thought we could all be forced to be obediant to the laws that govern heaven, and then He would dethrone god, giving glory to himself alone. Christ's plan was to give us our agency and all the glory to God. (glorify God)
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=Romans+15%3A6&search.x=31&search.y=10
http://scriptures.lds.org/query?words=1+Cor+6%3A20&search.x=31&search.y=10The scriptures are real to me Lou, and what I share, I believe with all my heart and hold dear. You have asked for an explanation. I hope you can understand my description.
Posted by 64bowtie on November 15, 2004, at 1:57:08
In reply to Re: Faith is not bewilderment, posted by Jai Narayan on November 14, 2004, at 10:52:13
Jai,
> gosh Rod what is the end?
<<< I don't enjoy irritating other people, but I do enjoy sharing here with you, so how did I manage to irritate you? I hear scorn in your post.
To be clear, ahem.... faith is not an end... faith is a tool... faith is a means to an end... I use both lots of beliefs and lots of faith to the better more efficient means to my goals and options to goals. How much faith can you use to achieve your goals?
RSVP
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on November 15, 2004, at 2:18:55
In reply to Bewilderment?, posted by verne on November 14, 2004, at 0:51:52
Verne,
I meant nothing but information.
Let me ask... Have you found this thread meaningful?
Rod
Posted by rayww on November 15, 2004, at 12:19:51
In reply to About faith...., posted by 64bowtie on October 29, 2004, at 1:42:41
This thread has taken some interesting turns, but going back to the idea of dictionary definitions of faith, how do you feel about the Bible Dictionary definition of faith? Here are three Bible dictionaries:
LDS Bible Dictionary:
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/contentsEaston Bible dictionary:
http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0001300.html#T0001302Web Bible Encyclopedia:
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/faith.htmlHere is another person's interpretation of the definitions:
["What is the difference between just ordinary prayer and a “prayer of faith”? As we consider that question, the difference is immediately apparent. The difference is faith, and what is faith? Of course, there are many definitions of faith, but one definition is “a strong belief plus action.” It is not perfect knowledge, but real faith lets a man act as if he knows it is true when in fact he does not.Therefore, faith in a real sense is power—power to act and perform without actual knowledge. The Lord’s formula for receiving the Spirit, then, is to get on our knees and communicate with him. Tell him what we are going to do—make commitments with him—outline our program—and then get up off our knees and go and do precisely what we have told him we would do. In the doing, the Spirit comes."]
When the spirit comes it is accompanied by faith.
The difference then between the world's definition of faith (excluding God) and the Bible's definition of faith (embracing God), is the spirit. People want to discover this spirit, and increase their spirituality, become a more spiritual person, develop their spiritual sense,The goal then should be to find the right spirit, the right God, the right definition. The choices are all here for chosers to choose.
You say, "I keep hearing faith bandied about as a designated end or purpose, ignoring the object of the very faith (God) being felt, leaving me wondering how we got there."
Do we agree that the only way to "feel" God is throught the spirit? Does that feeling strengthen our faith? Have you ever felt it?
I agree totally with what you say here:
"At no time do these definitions imply that faith is a weapon to be used to wipe out beleivers in other faiths."Here you use faith to mean one's religion:
"Also, testing folks' integrity based on their ferver in this or that faith, implies faith is more important than God."And, this one I reallly like, and agree with totally:
"For a long time now I have thought that this odd application of faith needed a different word to describe. Suddenly last week it came to me; FAITHISM: faith in faith itself, or faith is the object of the faith itself."
Your definition of FAITHISM should be added to both the world and Bible dictionary.Would belief in Jesus Christ be defined by you as faith as a religion? This is my definition of faith as a religion, quoted from another's words:
http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-439-13,00.htmlThese words I also echo.
rayww
Posted by Jai Narayan on November 15, 2004, at 20:59:21
In reply to Faith is not an end. Faith, like belief, is a tool » Jai Narayan, posted by 64bowtie on November 15, 2004, at 1:57:08
Dear Rod, I am sorry to admit this but I don't believe in faith.
It's been over for me for years.
I was a catholic and this destroyed my faith.
I will never believe in anything that required faith again in my life.
Sorry to dissapoint you.
I know you really like faith
sorry
Jai
Posted by verne on November 15, 2004, at 22:54:07
In reply to Re: Faith is not an end. Faith, like belief, is a tool, posted by Jai Narayan on November 15, 2004, at 20:59:21
Jai,
My heart goes out to you - what with the catholic experience. It's foreign to me but I came to know the Bible later.
I agree with you. When faith becomes a "tool" it is "man's" instrument. When we have such a handle on faith, we don't have it at all. As soon as we say that we have this kind of powerful, "tool-driven" faith, we have none.
I like what Paul said in the New Testament, when he said, "I believe in the Unseen". He hadn't completely figured it out but he filled it in with Love, Hope, and Faith. (footnote: I disagree with Paul over just about everything he said about women and eventually concluded that his misogynist remarks WERE NOT inspired by the Spirit, Holy or otherwise)
Someone who "abides in the Vine" does not "use" faith. The use of faith - usually for signs, wonders, and healing - puffs up and deludes - it's a worldly thing in man's power, and usually for man's ends.
It's one thing to tell this mountain to be removed, but yet another, to talk about it afterwards and schedule further miracles. You can't "control" the Spirit - what human conceit.
verne
Posted by 64bowtie on November 16, 2004, at 2:58:27
In reply to Re: About faith.... » 64bowtie, posted by rayww on November 15, 2004, at 12:19:51
Rayww,
> Would belief in Jesus Christ be defined by you as faith as a religion? This is my definition of faith as a religion, quoted from another's words:
<<< Thank you so much for listening... I have a small concern. When you overlap the function of two tools of any kind, you impair their unique and separate functions. Mixing faith and belief and religion is asking for trouble. Each has its own highest purpose.
1. Beliefs can be complete information based only on testimony.
2. Faith is belief in information based on intuition that the complete picture will manifest consistently from the partial picture being observed.
3. Religion is the imperative for mankind to have faith and believe.
4. Religion is obligatory in practice and nature.
5. Faith is voluntary.
6. Belief is optional as well as practical, guided by experienced sense of value. Beliefs can be updated, replaced, and discarded to accommodate situational nessecities.Of these three, I only hold religion in contempt, and only part of the time at best. Mankind cannot be trusted with worship of an absolute being and calling it faith or belief. Mankind is so corrupted that he must worship as a religion, as an imperative.
These are lifelong observations I hold as truth and are not intended to irritate anyone elses observations and sensibilities.
Rod
Posted by 64bowtie on November 16, 2004, at 3:06:15
In reply to Re: Faith is not an end. Faith, like belief, is a tool » Jai Narayan, posted by verne on November 15, 2004, at 22:54:07
> When faith becomes a "tool" it is "man's" instrument.
<<< How does faith become a tool if it already is a tool?
Rod
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.