Speaking of brainwashing ...

[_Hoops]

And I stand by it! This is how I think faith works. Faith, by definition, is belief in things that are not proven. If a person didn't need to believe in any particular proposition, they would not need faith. Yes or no?

This is my own view. What's yours?

That's fine. Stand by it. I'm not required to give it anymore consideration than I see fit. But let's move on.

Who's definition? Not ours. In fact, we are called to have sound, logical reasons for our faith. We do not consider faith to be belief in things that are not proven. We consider faith to be belief in something larger than ourselves that undergirded by our thinking. It has nothing to do with "wanting" it to be true, or "needing" it to be true. It has to do with it is reasonable. I think it is.

I've contested this a few times with my LDS friends and it goes back to their misinterpretation of the "keys" passage in Mt. Jesus is saying that (paraphrasing, of course) "I've presented you with the evidence, just as it is described in your scriptures yet you still don't believe. Those who look at the evidence I've given and believe that I am the Messiah will be given the "keys". - he's referring to millenial (sp?) kingdom, but that's another argument. That's why He asks, "Who do you say I am?"

[_harmony]

I've contested this a few times with my LDS friends and it goes back to their misinterpretation of the "keys" passage in Mt. Jesus is saying that (paraphrasing, of course) "I've presented you with the evidence, just as it is described in your scriptures yet you still don't believe. Those who look at the evidence I've given and believe that I am the Messiah will be given the "keys". - he's referring to millenial (sp?) kingdom, but that's another argument. That's why He asks, "Who do you say I am?"

I thought the keys referred to key concepts.

[_Quasimodo]

That's fine. Stand by it. I'm not required to give it anymore consideration than I see fit. But let's move on.

Not required, that's true. It might be fun for arguments sake.

Who's definition? Not ours. In fact, we are called to have sound, logical reasons for our faith. We do not consider faith to be belief in things that are not proven. We consider faith to be belief in something larger than ourselves that undergirded by our thinking. It has nothing to do with "wanting" it to be true, or "needing" it to be true. It has to do with it is reasonable. I think it is.

Called by who? Isn't this something that requires faith to accept? For you, this must seem to be logical. For me, it is not. Faith in something larger than ourselves requires an acceptance of an unproved premise (i.e. a belief in something beyond proof). I think you're saying that faith requires faith. A non-starter for me.

Personally, I don't require faith. I'd much rather not know than hope that I do. After all, admitting you don't know is closer to God than believing in something that is not true.

I've contested this a few times with my LDS friends and it goes back to their misinterpretation of the "keys" passage in Mt. Jesus is saying that (paraphrasing, of course) "I've presented you with the evidence, just as it is described in your scriptures yet you still don't believe. Those who look at the evidence I've given and believe that I am the Messiah will be given the "keys". - he's referring to millenial (sp?) kingdom, but that's another argument. That's why He asks, "Who do you say I am?"

Belief in those statements requires a belief in the Bible in the first place. Again, another leap of faith. I don't think even the Bible ever states that it is the true word of God. Even if it did, could it be believed?

You must be aware of all the historical evidence that most (or all) of the chapters in the new testament were written many years after the purported authors had passed away. What are we to believe?

[_Hoops]

I thought the keys referred to key concepts.

I would respectfully disagree. But I think that's another thread. Whatever the keys are, they are not given until one comes to an intellectual assent to who Jesus is. Closely tied to repentance. Repentance is not at it's core some whimsical sorrow for one's sins. It is recognition of who Jesus is. To do that, one must change one's thinking completely. As you know, to repent means to turn around.

[_Hoops]

Called by who? Isn't this something that requires faith to accept? For you, this must seem to be logical. For me, it is not. Faith in something larger than ourselves requires an acceptance of an unproved premise (i.e. a belief in something beyond proof). I think you're saying that faith requires faith. A non-starter for me.

Sigh. No, I"m NOT saying faith requires faith, and I cringe whenever I hear that false representation. Yes, it is logical to me. It's perfectly reasonable that there is some THING by which describe as deity.

Personally, I don't require faith. I'd much rather not know than hope that I do. After all, admitting you don't know is closer to God than believing in something that is not true.

I'm not sure I understand.

Belief in those statements requires a belief in the Bible in the first place.

I don't know what belief in the Bible means.

Again, another leap of faith.

No, not at all. I think there is strong evidence to believe what we say the Bible is.

I don't think even the Bible ever states that it is the true word of God. Even if it did, could it be believed?

I'm not sure I understand what you are expecting the Bible to do here.

[_Hoops]

I thought the keys referred to key concepts.

I'm confident that our friend Ceeboo disagrees with me here, but we are not so far apart that the result is different.

The keys given to Peter are his authority to re-offer the millenial kingdom to Israel, which, as you know, she has rejected. The kingdom is NOT the church, it is the literal millenial reign of Christ.

(should you be interested)

[_harmony]

I thought the keys referred to key concepts.

I'm confident that our friend Ceeboo disagrees with me here, but we are not so far apart that the result is different.

The keys given to Peter are his authority to re-offer the millenial kingdom to Israel, which, as you know, she has rejected. The kingdom is NOT the church, it is the literal millenial reign of Christ.

(should you be interested)

Strange word to use in that case. Why not just say authority?

[_Hoops]

Strange word to use in that case. Why not just say authority?

Seems like a perfectly reasonable, and accurate, word to use considering the kingdom is the literal Kingdom of God.

[_Runtu]

Yes, of course, it's my fault atheists/agnostics are so arrogant. I see now.

You still haven't explained why you thought my OP was so arrogant and/or atheist/agnostic.

[_Chap]

Yes, of course, it's my fault atheists/agnostics are so arrogant. I see now.

You still haven't explained why you thought my OP was so arrogant and/or atheist/agnostic.

There you go again, trying to imply that Hoops is stupid. Is there no end to your arrogance?