Pure Faith Standards

[dairygirl4u2c]

dairygirl
[quote]it is ironic, that even noncatholics, those who rely on faith only, usually dont give straight answers.
what must you do?

believe in jesus. no, that's not enough cause even demons 'believe' in him. believe he's god? demons do. believe he's savior? maybe, but different people have different conceptions of what that means, does it matte which conception they have? also, what about- believe he was raised from the dead, and/or confess with your mouth that he is lord? that's pretty biblical, but what abotu the other requirements? how does that fit with the requirement of savior? what if one is believed but the other isn't?
does it matter if hte prson simply doesn't know a certain thing from the above list, or how does it affect things if they reject a certqain thing?

usualy, even if ya get the fundamentlist to start listing things, then you run into the issue of it being dogmatic and mroe and more exclusive than something simply like just believing or believing he's savior.

what exactly, even using pureer faith standards regarless of works or religion, does one have to believe?

personally, i dont think you can peg this things as a science. [/quote]



[quote]Shadyrest, on 24 October 2010 - 08:57 PM, said:

Catholicism complicates the gospel by not giving us a straight answer, and I'm sorry to say, you're a prime example.[/quote]

where's your straight answer?

i know for a fact that you can't give it, without running into either being overly dogmatic, or without being too vague.
i'd be more than happy for you to prove me wrong.

if you make a list of certain things, i'll show how that excludes other things a persom might happen to believe (whether intentionally negliecting the others, or not) and show how it's dogmatic. if you keep it vague, i'll show how it's vague.
[fundamentalists usually like to avoid being 'dogmatic' per se, and also don't like things vague. yet, this situtaion is something that isn't so clear. that's just the way it is, to the dismay of many a fundamentalist]

there must be a medium.
that's the nature of what God requires of people's beliefs, it's a personal relationship somewhere in between dogmatic and vague.

anyways, where your stright answer.
im genuinely curious

Edited October 25, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

even using pure faith standards, what exactly is one expected to believe? i like to pose that to many fundamentalists. the ones who usually place simplicity and/or psygoholical bliss and/or ego, over the truth, and usually aren't even fundamentalist to anything, not the bible or truth, but themself or mainstream western contemporary fundamentalism.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm pretty sure he'd rather be picking on all hte people who don't know how to debate, puffing himself up cause he's able to spot weak arguments. but not actually proving anything to any significant degree.

[dairygirl4u2c]

"unless you believe that I AM, you will surely die in your sins"

"if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is lord, and that he was raised from the dead, you will be saved"

two examples of requriements. how dogmatic and/or vague should we be with these? particulary for people learning the faith?

it's a personal relationship. maybe it's when it all 'clicks' and they are 'born again'. sure, generally speaking. im not sure i can say where that point is though, for anyone, or by any specific or nonspecific standard.

[MichaelFilo]

In all fairness dairy, back in the day you'd start topics and then only follow them up to a point. There is nothing wrong with that.

I hope everyone realizes what it's like to post a point and have 10 people debate you at once. It's a bit overwhelming, for anyone. Not to say don't respond, but it is entirely overwhelming.