Righteousness through faith
-
interesting. here are their strengths:Originally posted by laurence82:Or got team one, where you must ally with Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims, Jewish and Hindus
Buddhists i know is like a healer, the Hindus elemetal fire etc etc
Shiok sia
Buddhists - healing power
Christians - charisma (can convert/soften the enemies)
Taoists - high on spells
Muslims - good with explosives
Jews - intelligent (can learn very fast)
Hindus - elemental fire
-
must tithe 10% to play.Originally posted by laurence82:This one got MMORPG version?
Can link to Battlenet?
Must pay monthly subscription for the MMORPG one?
-
he will be the Hebrew edition exclusive character.Originally posted by Chin Eng:brey is in the hebrew edition!
I'm wondering who are the hidden characters. -
If you understand that man cannot fully understand GOD in entirety, you will realise that whatever notion man has of GOD is false.
Whoever said we had a correct notion of God? I doubt we can even get a fully clear picture of our fellow mortals, let alone God.
The difference is this, you are stating that this unknowable nature means that one should not entertain any notions of God whatsoever and just put his trust in GOD.
In which you are actually arguing against yourself (as I have tired to tell you so many times). Your argument saws off the very plank it is sitting on by saying that there is a certain way you should regard GOD because we can't know anything about Him.
But yet in saying that you can't make any absoulte truth claim about Him you are making one truth claim, and in fact you demand a particular absolute way of approaching Him. I
n one swift and rather clumsly stroke you have destroyed your very own argument. Yes, you can't know anything about Him but yet this is what you must do because we know this about Him, but I have no reason to say that He's unknownable unless of course, I first do know something about Him.
In fact as I have said, you are fighting your own argument. It is only by misfortune I find myself having to be put as your proxy to dish out your logic against.
And what's more, Christians (or at least me by any measure), were never told to worship our ideal of God, but rather God Himself. The ideas are just an aid and a starting point. Before I hear any ahlupah about using any ideas, one needs to realize that to start from anywhere, one first needs an idea or a notion of sorts. It is odd that you start with one, but yet only insist on remainding with that singular idea.
In your world it would be that God is unknowlable, and yet I have to obey the unknown. I have no reason to do anything because I can't possibly know anything and yet I have to do something.
Unfortunately the contradition is only on your side.
And what's more, you seem to be making the fatal error of mistaking unknowablity with total invisibility. You are mistaking the child who can't understand everything about his father with the orphan who never had or seen a father before.
Nuff said. -
So the critical question is, "Do you believe with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength that there is only one God?"
One needs to know the answer is yes, that has never been in doubt. What is preplexing is of your notion that a yes demands inaction of concept. -
Whether there is something or nothing that GOD is not, that is not for you to judge. Your long post only shows one thing very clearly, you do not have FAITH in GOD, some form of God, yes, that makes you an idol worshipper on par with the seekers in Temples and Churches and Mosques.
Whoever said we were judging GOD. What I am telling you is that this is what GOD is telling us about Himself. And how do I know this? Besides apologetical notions and reason there is an element of faith. Nobody slaps ideas of God onto Him for fun, and there's a compelling reason why.
And as I've said, I do not worship my idea of God, I worship God Himself. The ideas are there simply because as a matter of first principles, one needs to have ideas about something before He can ever start to do anything about it.
To walk on the floor, I first have to have the notion that the very floor is there in the first place. Maybe there are some people who demand that we should always trust in the FLOOR and not have any ideas or any form of walking on the floor would not be true walking. Which is nonsense.
What's more amazing, you can't possibly have any point, stance, or case to make if you didn't have any ideas of God at all. What's odd is that as much as you claim that one should not have any ideas of God, you seem to be forming a very large one of Him yourself, and making it into dogma.THE people who cannot put their Faith in God unless they have a "notion" of God whether that notion is in the form of a statue or in the form of "intellectual " idols.... or to use your own words, "a logical need to know at least something about God, "
I have noticed you would like to divorce faith from reason. Unfortunately a slight examination into the matter reveals that they are pretty much intertwined.
Go read a little on what some person in the bible writes on what faith is. It's quite different from sheer belief, belief is a result of faith, but faith itself is not belief any more then your body exists soley for notion.
Let me let you in on a secret. One cannot say to have any objective fullness when one destroys objectivity itself.
I let you on a secret. Does not disqualify you as far as God is concern, only that you have missed out on the fullness of FAITH in GOD. So what is FAITH in GOD?
One might as well say it is equally as wholesome to worship the devil, for he is equally unknown to us as God, why let our ideas of this dabolical foe get in our way? -
Let me put it to you as this:
Your suggestion of faith is not a perfection or fullness of it, it is a defect of faith caused by a more deep-rooted defect of reason.
I suggest you do some serious thinking about your whole case or point before posting a reply, and even now I am open to you editing massive parts of your case without raising any protest on my side.
I also put it to you that if you haven't realized, you case is only internally congruent but fails to live up the the overall aspects of logicdom as I have demostrated. And oddly enough you might have realized that if you are advocating a system that relies on pure 'faith' (though I believe you have muddled up faith with 'belief') alone, there is no need to justify this system you are saying, for it requires no reason, nor can it stand up to any debate without producing nonsense.
You can just put it across as take it or leave it, but lets avoid all this nonsense about it needing to appeal to reason, for it is reason you have rejected in your thesis.
Unless of course you want to review and revise your 'theology'. -
To add on, if Ck has his own answers, his own pearls, as he called it, he must be ready to put those on the table and be scrutinised for validity too. I dont like this approach of 'for me to know, and for you to find out'. Kinda dumb, because otherwise he might not even have anything in this pocket too, and to quote icemoon, confusing with fuzziness.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Let me put it to you as this:
I suggest you do some serious thinking about your whole case or point before posting a reply, and even now I am open to you editing massive parts of your case without raising any protest on my side.
I also put it to you that if you haven't realized, you case is only internally congruent but fails to live up the the overall aspects of logicdom as I have demostrated. And oddly enough you might have realized that if you are advocating a system that relies on pure 'faith' (though I believe you have muddled up faith with 'belief') alone, there is no need to justify this system you are saying, for it requires no reason, nor can it stand up to any debate without producing nonsense.
You can just put it across as take it or leave it, but lets avoid all this nonsense about it needing to appeal to reason, for it is reason you have rejected in your thesis.
Unless of course you want to review and revise your 'theology'. -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
You said: "you are stating that this unknowable nature means that one should not entertain any notions of God whatsoever and just put his trust in GOD."
[b]
Whoever said we had a correct notion of God? I doubt we can even get a fully clear picture of our fellow mortals, let alone God.
The difference is this, you are stating that this unknowable nature means that one should not entertain any notions of God whatsoever and just put his trust in GOD.
In which you are actually arguing against yourself (as I have tired to tell you so many times). Your argument saws off the very plank it is sitting on by saying that there is a certain way you should regard GOD because we can't know anything about Him.
But yet in saying that you can't make any absoulte truth claim about Him you are making one truth claim, and in fact you demand a particular absolute way of approaching Him. In one swift and rather clumsly stroke you have destroyed your very own argument. Yes, you can't know anything about Him but yet this is what you must do because we know this about Him, but I have no reason to say that He's unknownable unless of course, I first do know something about Him.
In fact as I have said, you are fighting your own argument. It is only by misfortune I find myself having to be put as your proxy to dish out your logic against.
And what's more, Christians (or at least me by any measure), were never told to worship our ideal of God, but rather God Himself. The ideas are just an aid and a starting point. Before I hear any ahlupah about using any ideas, one needs to realize that to start from anywhere, one first needs an idea or a notion of sorts. It is odd that you start with one, but yet only insist on remainding with that singular idea.
In your world it would be that God is unknowlable, and yet I have to obey the unknown. I have no reason to do anything because I can't possibly know anything and yet I have to do something.
Unfortunately the contradition is only on your side.
And what's more, you seem to be making the fatal error of mistaking unknowablity with total invisibility. You are mistaking the child who can't understand everything about his father with the orphan who never had or seen a father before.
Nuff said.[/b]
Correct answer.
You said: "in fact you demand a particular absolute way of approaching Him"
Correct answer
You said: "Yes, you can't know anything about Him but yet this is what you must do because we know this about Him, but I have no reason to say that He's unknownable unless of course, I first do know something about Him. "
Wrong answer. There is no other way, you must approach God on the basis that you cannot have any correct notion about HIM. You might read scriptures to see how other people respond to God. Thst does not mean that God will respond the same with with you. You cannot judge God.
You said: "In your world it would be that God is unknowlable"
Wrong answer. You know God by your relationship with God. -
>SingaporeTyrannosaur: I am not responding to your other posts because as you can see, you are tottaly confused. I cannot blame you. You have been worshiping a "notion" "an intellectual idol" "a belief based on evidence" "a belief based on logic"
Only when you have Faith in God and not all these idols, will you start to begin to know God. For yourself, by yourself. There is no other way.
Ask yourself, what is Faith in God? -
work can finish one right?Originally posted by laoda99:Uncle Chin Eng today "Chin Eng" also....no need work har? -
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzOriginally posted by casino_king:>SingaporeTyrannosaur: I am not responding to your other posts because as you can see, you are tottaly confused. I cannot blame you. You have been worshiping a "notion" "an intellectual idol" "a belief based on evidence" "a belief based on logic"
Only when you have Faith in God and not all these idols, will you start to begin to know God. For yourself, by yourself. There is no other way.
Ask yourself, what is Faith in God? -
....but what is that to you?Originally posted by casino_king:>SingaporeTyrannosaur: I am not responding to your other posts because as you can see, you are tottaly confused. I cannot blame you. You have been worshiping a "notion" "an intellectual idol" "a belief based on evidence" "a belief based on logic"
....again, what is that to you?Originally posted by casino_king:Only when you have Faith in God and not all these idols, will you start to begin to know God. For yourself, by yourself. There is no other way.
Ask yourself, what is Faith in God?
so CK, is there love? a truly simple question.... -
how abt ur kids...dun need take care har... hahaOriginally posted by Chin Eng:work can finish one right?
never go out eat? -
just finished dinner. kids finished exams, no need to monitor liao. Own time own target.... but not staying here long lah... later go back to your lego website. Showed it to my boys just now, they were laughing their heads off....Originally posted by laoda99:how abt ur kids...dun need take care har... haha
never go out eat? -
I wanna open a bet on whether he will answer that question ,since he had conveniently chosen to avoid some.Originally posted by Chin Eng:....again, what is that to you?
so CK, is there love? a truly simple question....
All bets can be placed through PMs or MSN. -
If you think I like to do this with all those monkeys jumping up and down, think again.Originally posted by Chin Eng:....again, what is that to you?
so CK, is there love? a truly simple question....
Yes there is love.
Get Faith right first. -
what an insult to CK who is gambling counseller.Originally posted by laurence82:I wanna open a bet on whether he will answer that question ,since he had conveniently chosen to avoid some.
All bets can be placed through PMs or MSN. -
going back and forth for the last few pages, have anyone noticed this trend? C_K seems to be trying to play teacher here, he/she post a question, expect people to answer his/she questions (without him/her having the needs to answer back), then he/she will give marks (correct or not correct, go try again)...
-
Can you prove love from scientific evidence? Show me the scientific evidence (and I ask specifically for SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!). Should not be too difficult for you....Originally posted by casino_king:If you think I like to do this with all those monkeys jumping up and down, think again.
Yes there is love.
Get Faith right first.
forget the faith part, it's something for the Christians for figure out, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. -
I doubt he/she us a counseller or social worker (with field experieced type)Originally posted by Icemoon:what an insult to CK who is gambling counseller. -
once again, I urge CK to come clear with his point.
He calls some of us here monkeys. We are not monkeys but he definitely treat us like one. -
the charge will be damn dulan 'cos he only ask funny questions.Originally posted by vince69:I doubt he/she us a counseller or social worker (with field experieced type)
"what is gambling?"
"if gambling can bring in money, why are there winners or losers?" -
actually, i am not convinced of his entire credentials at all.....Originally posted by vince69:I doubt he/she us a counseller or social worker (with field experieced type) -
No you cannot prove love from scientific experiments, you can only experience it. You can only experience it when you have a relationship with that person.Originally posted by Chin Eng:Can you prove love from scientific evidence? Show me the scientific evidence. Should not be too difficult for you....
forget the faith part, it's something for the Christians for figure out, it has absolutely nothing to do with you.
God is only interested in Christians or is God interested in mankind? Based on that statement I have to conclude that you think you have Faith in God but you don't. You probably read a lot and did lots of bible study to try to understand faith. Unless you have Faith in God, you know nothing.