Correctness and Accuracy; Belief and Fact

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
In response to DHK's last remarks:

Sorry if you feel that the dictionary is an inadequate source for definitions of words used in our language. If you feel that I am being selective, go ahead and reference a different english dictionary for a different definition of theology. Although you may have your own definitions, the dictionary is an authoritative source.

The dictionary is a very good source. And yes you are being selective. Why didn't you look at the defintions from the dictionary that I already posted. The definitions are listed in order of importance or primary usage.

1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. "Faith, that is, fidelity, -- the fealty of the finite will and understanding to the reason." Coleridge.
3. (Theol.) (a) The belief in the historic truthfulness of the Scripture narrative, and the supernatural origin of its teachings, sometimes called historical and speculative faith. (b) The belief in the facts and truth of the Scriptures, with a practical love of them; especially, that confiding and affectionate belief in the person and work of Christ, which affects the character and life, and makes a man a true Christian, -- called a practical, evangelical, or saving faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please him [God]." Heb. xi. 6. "The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind which is called "trust" or "confidence" exercised toward the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior." Dr. T. Dwight. "Faith is an affectionate, practical confidence in the testimony of God." J. Hawes.

Notice that your definitions do not fit the most primary definitions of faith. You have chosen for your definitions the less common defintions for faith. That is characteristic of cults.
Faith is confidence or trust in the word of another, and that requires knowledge. Faith is not blind, as the above definitions (straight from the dictionary) indicate.

And since you brought up the subject of trolling, how would you characterize this (quoting DHK): "Your very faith is in doubt. . . . For whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

A troll is a hit and run poster who is there with no serious intention but to stir the pot as it were. And that seems to be your intention. You don't seem to be interested in finding out the truth. Your posts don't indicate a serious search for the truth.
--As for my statement quoted by you above, I tell you the truth. There is nothing about trolling at all. I have quoted you Scripture to back up what I say. You faith is in doubt. You say you have faith. But faith, of a necessity, must have an object. The object of my faith is Christ and the truth of his words, i.e. the Bible. Even Christ referred to the Books of Moses, the prophet of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others. He did not doubt the authorship of these Old Testament books. Yet you do doubt the authorship of the New Testament books even when there is plenty of evidence to back up their authorship you post ignorantly to the contrary, without any evidence. When you put your opinions in print on this board then back them up with evidence. Authorship is important. If you can't believe the author, you can't believe the book. For in most of the books the author identifies himself. You live in a world of disbelief.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are attempting to provoke me by saying words to the effect that, not only do I not have faith, but that my beliefs constitute sin.

Your beliefs are somewhat heretical. I will say that plainly. You deny the authorship of the NT books, and then say it is not important who wrote them. You claim to have faith, and can't really define what faith is. When you do define it, you re-define it, or define it in such a way that it is not Biblical. Are you cantankerous or teachable? Which? Your answer to that question will tell me if you are a legitimate poster or a troll.

You say this, despite the fact that this board is littered with my statements as to my having faith. Sounds like a direct contradiciton of my statements of my own beliefs and a pretty good example of provocation, e.g. "trolling." Thanks for the ". . .word to the wise."

Start making logical sense from your statements of faith; statements that others can hold a reasonable discussion with. Prove to us that you are not a troll. Quit posting at random heretical, provoking statements that you cannot substantiate. If you have any evidence for your statements then post it. What evidence, other than your opinion, for example, can you give for John not being the author of the Gospel of John. The very fact that you make such an absurd provocative statement with no supporting evidence puts you in the category of a troll. Get the picture?
DHK

 

[born again and again]

Sounds to me like anyone who challenges you is trolling. you did not bother to actually list the source for your definitions, while I listed the dictionary. I can cite the exact dictionary, i.e., Random House or American Heritage, of the English Language, by print date and copyright. Can you do the same thing?

What is your authority for stating that "my definitions" do not fit the most primary definitions of faith? I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary. Thus it was not "my definition". Is it not a good source for definitions of the English Language? What type of authority for definitions of the English Language do you prefer to use?

And your posting telling me I do not have faith, despite my words to the contrary is nothing but provocative.

I again challenge you to contradict me, using a recognized English Language Dictionary authority.

I also challenge you to cite any scientific authority which proves who actually wrote the books of the NT to which I earlier referred.

You can't, because, like mine, your beliefs are faith based.

 

[born again and again]

And it is interesting that i post the definition of "faith", per the American Heritage Dictionary and later you post your definition of theology. I later post the dictionary definition of theology and you start talking about the definition of "faith", but fail to cite your source.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
Sounds to me like anyone who challenges you is trolling. you did not bother to actually list the source for your definitions, while I listed the dictionary. I can cite the exact dictionary, i.e., Random House or American Heritage, of the English Language, by print date and copyright. Can you do the same thing?

If you actually read my posts, you would know that I already referenced my dictionary on page three when I first posted those definitions. But, for your sake, I will give you the URL again:

http://www.selfknowledge.com/34748.htm

There are also a multitude of other dictionaries on line if you don't like this one. I also have the same dictionaries that you have: Heritage, ets. I just didn't bother typing them out because pasting these ones in was just as easy. Either way they are reliable defintions.

What is your authority for stating that "my definitions" do not fit the most primary definitions of faith? I quoted the American Heritage Dictionary. Thus it was not "my definition". Is it not a good source for definitions of the English Language? What type of authority for definitions of the English Language do you prefer to use?

I'll demonstrate my point to you by on-line definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, what you have done. You can find these on-line; the URL is given below. Here are the definitions of faith that are given by the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
© 1996-2004 yourDictionary.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0018400.html

Why do you ignore the very first definition, which is the primary definition of faith: "confident belief in the truth."[/i[
Why do you ignore the theological definition, the one that we ought to be most interested in: The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God.
These are the definitions that you ought to be most concerned with. The definitions that you chose differ from these greatly. You are creating a "new theology" by an aberrant definition of your own choosing of defining faith in your own way, not in a standard theological way.

And your posting telling me I do not have faith, despite my words to the contrary is nothing but provocative.

You claim that you have faith. That is all. Faith always has an object. You have not declared yet what the object of your faith is: Allah? Buddha? the moon made out of green cheese? the President of the U.S.? Congress? What is the object of your faith. If you claim it to be Jesus, then what Jesus? If it is the Jesus of the Bible, then the Jesus of the Bible is defined by the truths set down in the Bible as accurately described by the ones that wrote the Bible. If you doubt the authors then you doubt the words that are in the Bible, which is doubting the Bible itself, which is then doubting Jesus. So what is the object of your faith. I have demonstrated now to you that it is not in Jesus, and it is not in the Bible. You deny both. Perahps it is in the idea that the moon is made out of green cheese! Is that the object of your faith. Remember that faith always has an object.

I again challenge you to contradict me, using a recognized English Language Dictionary authority.

As I have both said and demonstrated, I don't doubt your using a recognized English Language Dictionary. That is a good thing. I doubt the manner in which you use it. You use it in the exact same way that many cults use it. They find the definition that best fits their theology, and use that definition for their own devious means. Are you doing the same thing? It appears so.

I also challenge you to cite any scientific authority which proves who actually wrote the books of the NT to which I earlier referred.

As I said before: You made the allegations that the books of the Bible were not written by the people who claimed that they were written by (example Gospel of John). Therefore the onus is on you to back up your outrageous claims. It is not on me. I accept the Bible as it is, as most of the good people on this board do. Back up what you say or shut up about it. Don't act like a troll and post provocative material without any evidence.

You can't, because, like mine, your beliefs are faith based.

You are wrong. I can. But I am not going to take the time to dignify your challenge. You haven't taken the time to given any evidence to back up your claim. Why should I give any evidence in refuting it. You have everything backwards.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

Clearly, DHK, you have faith (i.e., belief), that the book referred to as John was actually written by John, the desciple of Jesus, who was with him. Unfortunatley, once again, you cite no authoritatie source for this belief.

For those who are interested, using your cited source for the definition of faith (www.yourdictionary.com), the number 1 definition listed is:

1. "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea or thing."

2. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

The number 3 definition at your cited source is:

3. "Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping the faith with ones supporters."

The number 4 definition from your cited source is:

4. "often faith Christianity. The theoretical virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will."

The number 5 definition from your cited source is:

5. "The body of a dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith."

The number 6 definition from your cited source is:

6. "A set of principles or beliefs."

It should be further noted that the single definition you referenced uses the word "belief" to define "faith."

My challenge to you was to cite an authoritative source for the definition of the word "faith" which does not use the word "belief" to define faith. This you have clearly not done.

Finally, your "primary source", which you posted for all to see, is an obscure opinion web site, and not an english dictionary.

To find your posted definition of "faith" using your cited authority, "www.selfknowledge.com", one must first go to that site and then link to another site, identified as "Emotional Literacy Education", and from there you can find the definition of "faith", which, by the way, is defined as "belief" in every definition.

I guess your proved your point. Thanks.

 

[born again and again]

DHK, I have faith, i.e. "belief". Apparently you do as well.

 

[born again and again]

Oh, DHK, one more thing. It was my son, who read your posting, who took it on himself to look up your sources, which proved to be as I noted above.

 

[born again and again]

DHK, since I listed all the definitions contained in your source, "yourdictionary.com", do you consider that I "used it as cults do"?, to quote you.

 

[born again and again]

DHK, I reviewed some of your prior postings on page three and saw your delarations regarding your degrees. Congratulations!! By the way, I have three degrees, including a doctorate.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:
Clearly, DHK, you have faith (i.e., belief), that the book referred to as John was actually written by John, the desciple of Jesus, who was with him. Unfortunatley, once again, you cite no authoritatie source for this belief.

Honestly, Born again and again,
I fail to see why I should do the work that is your obligation to do. Remember, you are the one that has made the outlandish claim that John is not the author of the Gospel of John. And now you want me to prove that he is. Don’t you think that you have this backwards? I will tell you this much. There is an unbroken chain of evidence from Christ to John to Polycarp to Irenaeus and on to Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. There are enough of the early church fathers and their writings to account for the Johannine authorship that it becomes indisputable. I have hardly scratched the surface of external evidence, and haven’t even begun to lay out internal evidence. Yet all of this is your responsibility to disprove. You’re the one that made the allegation, not me.
DHK

 

[born again and again]

DHK,

I guess you "gave up" on your definition game. Well you certainly are adamant that proof exists as to actually wrote the book of John. Unfortunately, although you have had a couple of weeks to do so, you have not been able to cite a single scientific authority for this proposition. It is one thing to have faith that whoever wrote the NT was divinely inspired, perhaps through the holy spirit. It is wholly another thing to declare who actually wrote the manuscripts, without there being any scientific proof. Your only argument so far has been one of emotional appeal or intimidation, such as, "outlandish."

That's it, folks; DHK has clearly won this debate. "Outlandish" has been called.

That must be some kind of supernatural code word.

Oh, by the way, when you quote someone, and take it on yourself to embolden the text quoted, the appropriate method is to note after the quote that you personally added the emphasis to the quote by making it bold or italicized. But I'm sure that, with all your degrees, you already know that; you were just using a little "shorthand" style.

Remember, facts are facts and belef is belief. It's OK that they are not the same thing.

My faith exists, despite the lack of evidence as to actually wrote the texts, for it really does not matter to me who wrote them. I feel that whoever wrote them must have ben divinely inspired. The fact that we really do not know who wrote them does not make the statements contained therein untrue.

When an individual states that he or she "knows" something to be true, that person is not demostrating the objective evidence of the "truth", but is acknowledging his or her belief that it is true. It is common for certain Christians to prefer to state their faith as "truth." In as much as, by the very nature of such a statement, they are expressing their opinion, it is subjective.

My faith is my "truth" for me and that is all that matters to me. I do not need to try to prove something which can't be proven (such as the actually identity of who wrote the piece),to believe in the truth of the wisdom contained therein. I guess that some people feel a need to have proof which doesn't actually exist, which results in their pretending that certain things are "scientific facts."

In one sense, such people have extreme faith, but in another sense, they undermine their own credibility.

By the way, DHK, you do not have to do any more work. You voluntarily took up the charge to state a contrary opinion. Back it up or don't; your choice.

 

[billwald]

>>Using the dictionary, try to define "faith" without using the word "belief".<<

>Faith in Jesus Christ does not come from a dictionary.<

Evangelical Protestant Christanity is "gnostic" in the sense that it redefines words in ways that only insiders can understand. When I read Catholic material I can use the dictionary for words that I don't understand. Reconstructionists are the worst. They can change the meaning of words 3 times in one paragraph.

 

[born again and again]

To billwald:

Although you are correct, "Grasshopper", faith does not come from a dictionary, it appears that you failed to notice that no one here ever claimed that it came from a dictionary.

The "faith" part of the discussion has been primarily on the issue of the definition of the word "faith", which does, in fact, come from the dictionary of the English language.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by born again and again:

My faith exists, despite the lack of evidence as to actually wrote the texts, for it really does not matter to me who wrote them. I feel that whoever wrote them must have ben divinely inspired. The fact that we really do not know who wrote them does not make the statements contained therein untrue.

When an individual states that he or she "knows" something to be true, that person is not demostrating the objective evidence of the "truth", but is acknowledging his or her belief that it is true. It is common for certain Christians to prefer to state their faith as "truth." In as much as, by the very nature of such a statement, they are expressing their opinion, it is subjective.

My faith is my "truth" for me and that is all that matters to me. I do not need to try to prove something which can't be proven (such as the actually identity of who wrote the piece),to believe in the truth of the wisdom contained therein. I guess that some people feel a need to have proof which doesn't actually exist, which results in their pretending that certain things are "scientific facts."

Your faith does not exist except blindly, as in the moon is made of green cheese. Faith has an object.
You have said that faith is when you know something to be true. You have no evidence to know that the Word of God is true, when you deny the authorship of the Books of the Bible. When you deny the authorship of the books you deny many of the inherent truths that are written by the same author. Some of the same authors identify themselves and give their life experience. For example Peter tells us how he was on the Mount of Transfiguration and describes it as one of greatest experiences he has ever had. Deny that Peter is the author of his epistles, and you deny the experiences of Peter, which are recorded in Mat.17; Luke 9; and Mark 9. Were those gospels written by their actual authors or did Peter just make up the story. Did Matthew for example record what Peter later told him, or just made up a fable?
If you don't know who the author is you don't know the veracity of the book, and you have no truth to believe. So don't tell me that you believe in the truth. You don't. You don't know what the truth is as long as you deny the authorship of these books.

The authorsip of these books can be proven. But like I say, I didn't start this conversation you did. You made the outlandish statement that John is hot the author of the Gospel of John, and offered no evidence to prove your assertion. The onus is on you to prove your assertion. Without any evidence you are a troll, a liar, and a deceiver. Provide evidence for what you say.
DHK

 

[steaver]

ba&a is wasting your time DHK . He has never answered as to the object of his faith. One of his original statements on page one was... " no one knows what Jesus said, as he never wrote anything down and neither did anyone who witnessed his actions ."

If his faith is not in what Jesus said, then he is not a born again Christian. The only place you find the term "born again" is in the book of John which claims "Jesus said". Therefore he cannot be born again, for as he claims, he knows not what Jesus said!

He should prove himself or be banned. Even if he is not a Christian I could see letting him stay if he were here to learn, but it is obvious he is here only to spew out heresy.

God Bless!

 

[born again and again]

"Banned"; don't stop there, steaver: how bout a good old-fashioned stoning?

steaver, this is a debate forum. I began this topic by posting a premise. A premise which has obviously angered you, but not spurred you to produce contradictory scientific facts. There was much debate over definitions here and, it appears that you and some others do not like to use the English Dictionary for word definitions. That's OK, but if you are going to use a different language to communicate, you should be honest about it.

My premise has beeen stated clearly. It is not necessary to have scientific proof as to who actually wrote the book of John, or others, to have faith. Sorry if you don't like it, but you can always introduce scientific evidence to refute it . . .or not.

 

[DHK]

My Premise:
The Loch Ness monster resides in Loch Ness, Scotland.

That is my premise. I offer no evidence; no proof. The onus is on the BB to disprove me.

That is what you have done here BA&A.
A ridiculous proposition indeed!!

 

[steaver]

steaver, this is a debate forum. I began this topic by posting a premise. A premise which has obviously angered you, but not spurred you to produce contradictory scientific facts. There was much debate over definitions here and, it appears that you and some others do not like to use the English Dictionary for word definitions. That's OK, but if you are going to use a different language to communicate, you should be honest about it.

You state that you are a born again Christian.

Who said that ye must be born again?

God Bless!

 

[born again and again]

Don't you people understand that the debate is not about me?

Now our fellow educate, DHK, is referencing the Loch Ness monster. Allright, I'll play.

Premise: Someone wrote that the Loch Ness Monster resides in Scotland and the writing itself contains a statement which claims that it was written by an eyewitness. There have been no writings found, which have been dated contemporaneously with the time period during which the eyewitness would have lived. The most obvious conclusion is that there is no scientific proof that the "eyewitness" wrote the story. That is not the same thing as saying that the Loch Ness monster doesn't reside in Scotland.

And steaver; you just need to back off with the personal attacks.

 

[born again and again]

And don't worry, DHK. You still get the credit for using the argument, "outlandish."