no faith = no righteousness

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't believe you.

Do you say that Gandis faith is equally good as the christian faith? And even muslim faith or voodoo faith?
Do you really say in the title that Only those who have (any) faith have righteousness?

No, you think otherwise. I think you're are religocentric.

Do you say that Gandis faith is equally good as the christian faith?
-------------------fabian---------------------------

In some ways Ghandi's faith was better and stronger than mine. He pretty much gave his life to the cause of justice and put himself at great risk. His conviction and determination was inspirational. Most impressive was his committment to non-violence. I think he was a great follower of Jesus , it's just that maybe he didn't realise it or explicitly talked in those terms. I think Jesus was with him.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Do you say that Gandis faith is equally good as the christian faith?
-------------------fabian---------------------------

In some ways Ghandi's faith was better and stronger than mine. He pretty much gave his life to the cause of justice and put himself at great risk. His conviction and determination was inspirational. Most impressive was his commi ...[text shortened]... t maybe he didn't realise it or explicitly talked in those terms. I think Jesus was with him.

It's funny. You're not the first christian who says: "He is a good man, so he must be christian even if he doesn't know it himself." and "He is a bad man. He says he is a christian, but he is not. No real christian would behave like this." Hitler was a christian but Dalai Lama isn't. But Hitler cannot be a christian because of what he did, and Dalai Lama must be a christian because of his deeds. Strange...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You give another definision of "righteousness". Are you sure that OP has the same definition as you use? I'm not.

Further down you give a notion of god. And I ask you which god? Krishna? You see, the christian god is denied by the majority of the people in the world. Most of the people of this earth have another faith than you have. JW is a yet very sm ...[text shortened]... JWers, so their opinion in the amtter are far mor important than the isolated group of JWers.

Krishnas standards are not those of the Christian God, Bin Ladins standards are not those of the Christian God, your standards are not those of the Christian God, therefore your attempts to measure and evaluate anything in correlation to this is utterly futile. It matters not whether you accept those standards or not, it matters not whether the world denies them or not and it matters even less that the majority of the world does not accept them, for the Christians God standards of righteousness are in relation, not to you, not to Ghandi, not to Krishna, but to himself. Do you understand that? Why are you asking Christians what Muslims profess? the standards of righteousness are not the same? why do you not comprehend that?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, i think it may be argued, that there is a difference between a good person, or a valiant person or even in this case a self sacrificing person, and a righteous person. what it is at present i do not know, but i think it exists.

Yes, you could make that argument, but to what end?

"There is none righteous; no, not one." -Rom 3:10

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, you could make that argument, but to what end?

"There is none righteous; no, not one." -Rom 3:10

yes, i think that it is because, as i have been trying to get Fabian to think about, God is the standard of righteousness and being imperfect we have no way of attaining to his standard perfectly, therefore no one is righteous. However please consider the difference between goodness and righteousness for a distinction is made.

The apostle Paul seems to make a distinction between goodness and righteousness when, speaking of Christ’s sacrificial death, he says: “For hardly will anyone die for a righteous man; indeed, for the good man, perhaps, someone even dares to die. But God recommends his own love to us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Ro 5:7, 8) A man can be termed “righteous” if he fulfils his proper obligations, is just, impartial, honest, not guilty of wrongdoing or immorality, hence one known for integrity of conduct and uprightness. Paul’s statement, however, implies a certain superiority in “the good” man. To be “good,” the individual could not, of course, be unrighteous or unjust; yet other qualities distinguish him from the man primarily known for his righteousness. The use of the Greek term shows that the person noteworthy for, or distinguished by, goodness is one who is benevolent (disposed to do good or bring benefit to others) and beneficent (actively expressing such goodness). He is not merely concerned with doing what justice requires but goes beyond this, being motivated by wholesome consideration for others and the desire to benefit and help them.—Compare Mt 12:35; 20:10-15; Lu 6:9, 33, 35, 36; Joh 7:12; Ac 14:17; Ro 12:20, 21; 1Th 5:15.

Thus, Paul evidently is showing that, while the man noted for being “righteous” may win the respect, even the admiration, of others, he may not appeal to their heart so strongly as to impel anyone to die for him. However, the man outstanding for his goodness, who is warm, helpful, considerate, merciful, actively beneficial, wins affection; and his goodness may appeal to the heart sufficiently that, for such a one, a person might be willing to die.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
It's funny. You're not the first christian who says: "He is a good man, so he must be christian even if he doesn't know it himself." and "He is a bad man. He says he is a christian, but he is not. No real christian would behave like this." Hitler was a christian but Dalai Lama isn't. But Hitler cannot be a christian because of what he did, and Dalai Lama must be a christian because of his deeds. Strange...

I didn't say he was a christian.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Krishnas standards are not those of the Christian God, Bin Ladins standards are not those of the Christian God, your standards are not those of the Christian God, therefore your attempts to measure and evaluate anything in correlation to this is utterly futile. It matters not whether you accept those standards or not, it matters not whether the worl ...[text shortened]... slims profess? the standards of righteousness are not the same? why do you not comprehend that?

No, the standards of Krishna are different, bin Ladin is not even a god, even I have a different standard. As an example: I don't believe in the evil christian god that so many worship.

My point, if you like me to repeat it once more, is that majority of the worlds population don't accept the christian god, yet christian fundamenalists time after time say that they, and only they, have the right beliefs. That's funny. Only funny. Pathetic. The fundamentalists tell every one, as often as possible, that they are better than the rest. Again: Pathetic.

Christians have not monopoly of the word 'faith'. Therefore I bring up that many religions have faith. So, back to the thread title "no faith = no righteousness" is not about chrisstian faith only. If you say faith, and mean it generally, then you have some ideas of how other religions faith works, and not only see that faith is christian and christian only, god is not the christian god only. But you repete time after time that you have the right faith, noone else, you have the right god, and noone else, forgetting that the christian religion is quite small compared to all the rest.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
No, the standards of Krishna are different, bin Ladin is not even a god, even I have a different standard. As an example: I don't believe in the evil christian god that so many worship.

My point, if you like me to repeat it once more, is that majority of the worlds population don't accept the christian god, yet christian fundamenalists time after time one else, forgetting that the christian religion is quite small compared to all the rest.

i dont know if you noticed, the equation was NO faith, see that NO faith, its quite important. Now that presupposes someone who may be a-religious, after all this is the spirituality forum where matters concerning religion are discussed. To then go on about this faith and that faith has practically no relevance to the equation, for he was talking about no faith as in an a religious context. Now the equation becomes clear, for if there is no religious adherence i.e NO faith, and by definition, righteousness is adherence to the will of a divinity, then the statement logically stands to be true, NO faith does indeed mean NO righteousness, for there is no religious standard by which righteousness may be measured, for everything then becomes relative to the individual. You can repeat your point all you like, i have shown that it is utterly irrelevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i dont know if you noticed, the equation was NO faith, see that NO faith, its quite important. Now that presupposes someone who may be a-religious, after all this is the spirituality forum where matters concerning religion are discussed. To then go on about this faith and that faith has practically no relevance to the equation, for he was talking ab ...[text shortened]... individual. You can repeat your point all you like, i have shown that it is utterly irrelevant.

Oh, ever so friendly, as always.
Perhaps I'll start with the 'JW culter' business again. That always make you show your real face.

If you want me to repeat myself, I'm happy to. But it would be better if you read the thread from the beginning again. It's all there, you know.

Now, if you want respect in return, then please show respect. If you seek an argument then you always get one. If you want friends, then be one. If you want to win a dispute you will always win the dispute, only because you're stubborn enough. But you will never learn anything.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, ever so friendly, as always.
Perhaps I'll start with the 'JW culter' business again. That always make you show your real face.

If you want me to repeat myself, I'm happy to. But it would be better if you read the thread from the beginning again. It's all there, you know.

Now, if you want respect in return, then please show respect. If you seek ...[text shortened]... s win the dispute, only because you're stubborn enough. But you will never learn anything.

ummm does anyone else think that this is devoid of any type of reasoning? just the same old personal attacks with no substance, oh well, hum ho, life goes on.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Oh, ever so friendly, as always.
Perhaps I'll start with the 'JW culter' business again. That always make you show your real face.

If you want me to repeat myself, I'm happy to. But it would be better if you read the thread from the beginning again. It's all there, you know.

Now, if you want respect in return, then please show respect. If you seek ...[text shortened]... s win the dispute, only because you're stubborn enough. But you will never learn anything.

Thanks. I'm glad to see some open minds here, and reasonable people. It's unfortunate that doesn't apply to everybody here.

quotation in respect of a comment i posted in the debates forum! read it and weep Fabidoo!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[b]Thanks. I'm glad to see some open minds here, and reasonable people. It's unfortunate that doesn't apply to everybody here.

quotation in respect of a comment i posted in the debates forum! read it and weep Fabidoo![/b]

Again so friendly. On the surface. As every JW culter.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Again so friendly. On the surface. As every JW culter.

wait a minute, one person states that i am open minded, reasonable and here you are making your usual broad generalisations, tarring everyone with the same brush, labelling and filing the individuals away in your large jar of prejudice, to gaze upon them as one would a pickled organ. Does that not strike you as slightly ironic Fabidoo?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wait a minute, one person states that i am open minded, reasonable and here you are making your usual broad generalisations, tarring everyone with the same brush, labelling and filing the individuals away in your large jar of prejudice, to gaze upon them as one would a pickled organ. Does that not strike you as slightly ironic Fabidoo?

You are an ambassador of the JW culters. If you say you are a true JW culter, then I know everything I need to know about these culters.

You are everything *but* open minded. Your brain is carved in stone.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You are an ambassador of the JW culters. If you say you are a true JW culter, then I know everything I need to know about these culters.

You are everything *but* open minded. Your brain is carved in stone.

haha Fabidoooooo, boo hoo hoo, moo moo moo, floo floo floo, goo goo goo!