Religious beliefs on bitcoin

[crumbcake]

...  My argument is against an externalized god. Satanism is a better argument against theism than atheism is...

Just a tiny technical detail:  Satanism is not an argument against theism, it *is* theism.  What's cuter still is the common variants are little more than Christian striation cults.  From simplistic inversions of Christian teachings and symbols (Good->Evil, Cross->Upside-down Cross) to sublime interpretations of Sufis*, who worship Satan as the greatest lover of God -- like Christ, receiving the ultimate punishment for embodying the ultimate truth**.

*Islam, at least for the nonbelievers: Judaism +1 prophet = Christianity, +another prophet = Islam.

**The punishment, of course, is not defeat, but being cast away from the one he adored (God).  As he fell to the depths of hell, a feather parted from his wing.  As it fell to earth, it became Satan's first gift to man: Freedom.

Satanism, as with any number of ideologies, is a tangled wreck of intersecting themes, ideas, practices and interpretations.
My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear.

In other words, when you say "satanism" you mean something entirely different than what you expect others mean by the same word
Sounds like a great way to start silly debates

[1714049022]

1714049022

[1714049022]

1714049022

[1714049022]

1714049022

[neurobox]

...

Are you saying that Muhammad was *not* a prophet?  Read the definition:
"In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam#Table_of_prophets.2Fmessengers_in_the_Quran )

That's the definition as Islam would have it. That makes any old psychic hotline lady a prophet as well.

No, the way it was done in the OT was that if someone had a message with a prophecy from God to declare, they would stand before the elders of that time and deliver it. The scribes would record and notarize it. That way, if it came true, it would be on the record who said it, and further attention would be paid to the other things they said. There was extremely little tolerance for false prophets, so such was rarely attempted. This is why we have the books of the prophets.

[ktttn]

I am deciding what to listen to and what influences my mind.  I have found I need to have a filter on at all times.

Sounds to me like you are describing that blindfold you mentioned earlier, and that you are the one trying to get others to put on the blindfold as opposed to "seeing" and being frustrated at others wearing blindfolds.
How is selectively picking what you allow yourself to see and read supposed to be "opening your eyes and seeing?"

That is a good question.  I can see your point.  I have no problem studying all religions and beliefs or philosophies or even reading books that I do not "agree" with.  It is really important to understand others and where they are coming from.  I think many Christians are ignorant about what others believe.  All religions have some good elements in them, otherwise why would anyone follow them?  So in order to respect others, it is really important to try to understand them!  That said, there are things that I can instantly know is not right and be selective and not allow myself to look at.  For example, pornography is one thing.  It is degrading to women.  I suppose someone could justify it in that it celebrates the beauty of women, etc, but I think that it leads to lust and thoughts that are not "pure" so I try to to avoid having it around our house.  I really don't want to expose my kids to it either.  So, I shelter myself, and my children from it.  Or songs that are violent, angry, full of cussing etc.  What good comes from that?  I am not necessarily opposed to any style of songs, per se, although I really don't care for rap too much, but if the message behind the song is good then I thing is is great.  There are many TV shows I will not watch after watching it once or twice.  Why?  The message in the show is trying to promote a lifestyle, or thinking that is hedonistic.  I have found in my life that if I allow those things in I slowly begin to think that those things are normal.  We can see the shift in our own society.  There were things that were not accepted 50 or 60 years ago that are now "normal."  Many would say that is a "good" thing.  I, on the other hand, think it is a dangerous movement.  Also, there are so many different ideas out there.  How does one know what truth really is?  We are in a world that is getting to a point where there is almost no belief in absolute truth at all.  Everything is becoming more relative.  I personally believe in absolute truth and that my foundation is the Bible.  This is my own personal belief and I know many of you will stop reading right there and say I am a Bible-thumper and discredit everything else I say.  But that is where I am coming from.  I suppose someone could argue that the Bible is my "blindfold."  I think the Bible has become my lens that I try to look through to measure what is good, right, pure etc.

I guess the question I have is why wouldn't people selectively pick what they watch?  Do they think that they can just watch anything and it won't affect them? Do they see things that they don't agree with but then not worry about it affecting them? Maybe they do not even have a moral compass by which to measure things?  I think it is just that whatever is entertaining, or interesting, or funny, or makes them feel good etc. is what most people watch, read, or fill their minds with, personally. (not all people I know)

Also, it is wrong to try to shelter myself, or my children, from things that are not wholesome?  

One might object to and boycott the monetized rape entertainment industry and violence celebrating TV without the slightest influence of the bible. I hope we can agree that a foundation in religion is a far cry from a prerequisite for good taste and the ability to discern between a helpful and harmful medium for ideas.
In fact, steeping oneself to any degree in religious dogma can, has, and tends to obstruct good judgement
EDIT: I'm not above quoting the bible. I could get someone off guard and illustrate a point by doing that. The difference is in diversity of citations. The christian flaw is the willingness to subscribe to a monopoly of ideas. If you can construct an idea from references to nonchristian sources,.any arhumemt you make cannot be diissed out of hand by thinking nonchristians.

[ktttn]

...  My argument is against an externalized god. Satanism is a better argument against theism than atheism is...

Just a tiny technical detail:  Satanism is not an argument against theism, it *is* theism.  What's cuter still is the common variants are little more than Christian striation cults.  From simplistic inversions of Christian teachings and symbols (Good->Evil, Cross->Upside-down Cross) to sublime interpretations of Sufis*, who worship Satan as the greatest lover of God -- like Christ, receiving the ultimate punishment for embodying the ultimate truth**.

*Islam, at least for the nonbelievers: Judaism +1 prophet = Christianity, +another prophet = Islam.

**The punishment, of course, is not defeat, but being cast away from the one he adored (God).  As he fell to the depths of hell, a feather parted from his wing.  As it fell to earth, it became Satan's first gift to man: Freedom.

Satanism, as with any number of ideologies, is a tangled wreck of intersecting themes, ideas, practices and interpretations.
My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear.

In other words, when you say "satanism" you mean something entirely different than what you expect others mean by the same word
Sounds like a great way to start silly debates

I expect all sorts of things from all sorts of people. Never has this debate been not silly.
I would like to hope that if Im talking to someone, and I say namaste, they will not burn a cross on my lawn garden.

[crumbcake]

...

Are you saying that Muhammad was *not* a prophet?  Read the definition:
"In religion, a prophet is an individual who is claimed to have been contacted by the supernatural or the divine, and to speak for them, serving as an intermediary with humanity, delivering this newfound knowledge from the supernatural entity to other people.[1][2] The message that the prophet conveys is called a prophecy." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophets_of_Islam#Table_of_prophets.2Fmessengers_in_the_Quran )

That's the definition as Islam would have it. That makes any old psychic hotline lady a prophet as well.

No, the way it was done in the OT was that if someone had a message with a prophecy from God to declare, they would stand before the elders of that time and deliver it. The scribes would record and notarize it. That way, if it came true, it would be on the record who said it, and further attention would be paid to the other things they said. There was extremely little tolerance for false prophets, so such was rarely attempted. This is why we have the books of the prophets.

You .. are kidding, i hope?  Why would a prophet, with the only, the all-powerful God behind him, need a notary public?

[semaforo]

Okay, so bitcoin is like Jesus(peace be with him), and the current banking system is like the pharisees.
As for end times prophecies, bitcoin is certainly one more step towards the end of the universe, just like every breath we take and every heartbeat.  
    Its because of my love for Jesus that I have to point out that coptic, roman catholic(and subsequently protestants), and orthodox Christians all include different books in their compilations of the bible. The current bible and Christian doctrine, including the doctrine of trinitarianism was established at the Council of Nicea three centuries after Jesus' ascension, and only received Emperor Constantine's approval because he wanted a unified doctrine for political reasons. All other viewpoints were then stamped out through torture, executions, and destruction of texts. Some of the texts that survived are included in the Nag Hammadi library.
     At the council of Nicea, St. Nicholas argued for trinitarianism, and a man named Arius argued for the unity of God. The argument became so heated that Nicholas slapped Arius in the face. Nicholas won the debate. I guess Arius just turned the other cheek.
     Given the disparity in various collections of the bible, small nuances in translation that can work out to major differences over the centuries, the questionable authorship of the bible(i.e.: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not actually write the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the fact that Paul, the author of at least 15 of the books of the new testament, arrested, tortured, and killed Christians for living(yes, I am implying that St. Paul may have been a double agent) and also a tutor to the scribes who wrote some of the other books of the new testament, considering all of this I hold the bible in profound esteem and certainly consider the wisdom in it to be divine, however, I read it with caution knowing that it has most certainly been sullied by the hands of men. I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes the bible to be in its entirety to be divine word, and may God forgive me if I am mistaken.
     In the interest of truth and honoring the Messiah(may peace and blessings be with him) I write these words here. Actually I am just a troll. HA! Just joking.
Peace

[crumbcake]

...  My argument is against an externalized god. Satanism is a better argument against theism than atheism is...

Just a tiny technical detail:  Satanism is not an argument against theism, it *is* theism.  What's cuter still is the common variants are little more than Christian striation cults.  From simplistic inversions of Christian teachings and symbols (Good->Evil, Cross->Upside-down Cross) to sublime interpretations of Sufis*, who worship Satan as the greatest lover of God -- like Christ, receiving the ultimate punishment for embodying the ultimate truth**.

*Islam, at least for the nonbelievers: Judaism +1 prophet = Christianity, +another prophet = Islam.

**The punishment, of course, is not defeat, but being cast away from the one he adored (God).  As he fell to the depths of hell, a feather parted from his wing.  As it fell to earth, it became Satan's first gift to man: Freedom.

Satanism, as with any number of ideologies, is a tangled wreck of intersecting themes, ideas, practices and interpretations.
My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear.

In other words, when you say "satanism" you mean something entirely different than what you expect others mean by the same word
Sounds like a great way to start silly debates

I expect all sorts of things from all sorts of people. Never has this debate been not silly.
I would like to hope that if Im talking to someone, and I say namaste, they will not burn a cross on my lawn garden.

If you're in US, unless you're in some hippy 'hood, it's probably smarter to say 'hi.'  It always seems more polite to use terminology your listeners are more likely to understand.  Not sure about the cross burning.  Might prevent that too, but no guarantees.  Results may vary according to state.

[neurobox]

Because anyone can say anything, but God put many things on the record for us, and signed them with fulfilment. For one, Isaiah was authenticated in this way even before his prophecies of the messiah which were fulfilled in Christ.

[21] That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. [22] But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- [23] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles." - Acts 26:21-23 NIV

[QuestionAuthority]

Okay, so bitcoin is like Jesus(peace be with him), and the current banking system is like the pharisees.
As for end times prophecies, bitcoin is certainly one more step towards the end of the universe, just like every breath we take and every heartbeat.  
    Its because of my love for Jesus that I have to point out that coptic, roman catholic(and subsequently protestants), and orthodox Christians all include different books in their compilations of the bible. The current bible and Christian doctrine, including the doctrine of trinitarianism was established at the Council of Nicea three centuries after Jesus' ascension, and only received Emperor Constantine's approval because he wanted a unified doctrine for political reasons. All other viewpoints were then stamped out through torture, executions, and destruction of texts. Some of the texts that survived are included in the Nag Hammadi library.
     At the council of Nicea, St. Nicholas argued for trinitarianism, and a man named Arius argued for the unity of God. The argument became so heated that Nicholas slapped Arius in the face. Nicholas won the debate. I guess Arius just turned the other cheek.
     Given the disparity in various collections of the bible, small nuances in translation that can work out to major differences over the centuries, the questionable authorship of the bible(i.e.: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not actually write the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), and the fact that Paul, the author of at least 15 of the books of the new testament, arrested, tortured, and killed Christians for living(yes, I am implying that St. Paul may have been a double agent) and also a tutor to the scribes who wrote some of the other books of the new testament, considering all of this I hold the bible in profound esteem and certainly consider the wisdom in it to be divine, however, I read it with caution knowing that it has most certainly been sullied by the hands of men. I mean no disrespect to anyone who believes the bible to be in its entirety to be divine word, and may God forgive me if I am mistaken.
     In the interest of truth and honoring the Messiah(may peace and blessings be with him) I write these words here. Actually I am just a troll. HA! Just joking.
Peace

LOL At least when my life flashes before my eyes I'll have something worth watching. It's actually making me hot just thinking about it.

[crumbcake]

Because anyone can say anything, but God put many things on the record for us, and signed them with fulfilment. For one, Isaiah was authenticated in this way even before his prophecies of the messiah which were fulfilled in Christ.

[21] That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. [22] But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- [23] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles." - Acts 26:21-23 NIV

Please.  The Red Sea was parted to make a point as much as safe passage.  I think this God can make his will known without the say-so  & stamp of approval from some old fogies.
Edit:  And just to shame you: "Then said Jesus unto him, Except you see signs and wonders, you will not believe." John 4:48, KJV

[BitChick]

You sound like a good person. Good people will be good with or without God. Religion is a way for good people to rationalize all the bad that exists in the world without going crazy. It also gives them a tool to try to make bad people good. I guess from that standpoint there is nothing wrong with religion. I'm glad you found something to give you comfort.

I don't know.  I can be a very evil person.  I have hated so much I wanted to kill someone.  I have lusted, stolen, struggled with jealousy, etc.  That is why I am thankful for God's help and forgiveness.  Even my best attempt at being "good" would never be good enough, hence why I need Jesus.  He is daily helping me let go of my evil thoughts.  It will be a lifelong journey I have found.  But like Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick."   

As for making bad people good?  That is not my job at all, nor is it the job of the "Christians" even though some "Christians" think it is.  I think the church oversteps their bounds in that all the time.  If someone truly wants to know God, then the Holy Spirit will take care of the "bad" in time by doing the same thing He does for me, with conviction and change of heart from the inside out, not from external pressure. 

But thanks for the kinds words regardless. 

[neurobox]

Because anyone can say anything, but God put many things on the record for us, and signed them with fulfilment. For one, Isaiah was authenticated in this way even before his prophecies of the messiah which were fulfilled in Christ.

[21] That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. [22] But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- [23] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles." - Acts 26:21-23 NIV

Please.  The Red Sea was parted to make a point as much as safe passage.  I think this God can make his will known without the say-so  & stamp of approval from some old fogies.

Those "old fogies" just somehow miraculously happened to be the ones capable of accurately preserving those statements for millennia. How many civilisations on Earth have even lasted that long, let alone tested and approved prophetic documents?

Would you prefer that God strictly speak through plagues, partings and major events, while you try to decipher what he wants from them?

The red sea story could be said to foreshadow Christ, so could all the hebrew feasts, but none were so direct a prophecy as Isaiah gave. It also makes the point that one person, plus God, can change all of history to follow.

[crumbcake]

Because anyone can say anything, but God put many things on the record for us, and signed them with fulfilment. For one, Isaiah was authenticated in this way even before his prophecies of the messiah which were fulfilled in Christ.

[21] That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. [22] But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen-- [23] that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles." - Acts 26:21-23 NIV

Please.  The Red Sea was parted to make a point as much as safe passage.  I think this God can make his will known without the say-so  & stamp of approval from some old fogies.

Those "old fogies" just somehow miraculously happened to be the ones capable of accurately preserving those statements for millennia. How many civilisations on Earth have even lasted that long, let alone tested and approved prophetic documents?

Would you prefer that God strictly speak through plagues, partings and major events, while you try to decipher what he wants from them?

The red sea story could be said to foreshadow Christ, so could all the hebrew feasts, but none were so direct a prophecy as Isaiah gave. It also makes the point that one person, plus God, can change all of history to follow.

Did you read my edit?  Do you believe God is incapable of making Himself known by simply willing it?  That he needs to rely on validation through attestments of men?
Please try to understand that we're talking about faith, and any proof would destroy faith, making it nothing more than a reasonable conviction.  If God's existence could be proven, "believing" in him wouldn't get you the cupie doll.  

Edit:  No one *ever* has to "decypher" what God wants.  God doesn't have trouble communicating, he's good at it.

Edit2:  You're short-changing the god that (i assume) you believe in.  That god is God!  He needs no assistance from man*.  He created/creates/will create time itself, the reality/illusion/(A & ~A) -- that's the power level i'm talking about.  Not some termite-eaten scrolls.

[neurobox]

Did you read my edit?  Do you believe God is incapable of making Himself known by simply willing it?  That he needs to rely on validation through attestments of men?

He can show himself at will. He does it all the time. You suppose he's doing it wrongly, or inadequately, on the premise that you understand the very role of mankind in eternity better than he does.

You also seem to enshrine faith beyond any religious person I've known... Faith itself  is not what saves you. Jesus is. It requires a leap of faith to trust that his forgiveness is for you and that his resurrection can be yours.

[John 20:29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
[30] Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
[31] But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Faith was not a concept in the Aramaic. The word was one with Faithfulness, as in "trust in one who proves faithful." Atheists frequent the term as though it were a free, logical wildcard with which to make fools of us. It's insincere and doesn't lend itself to logical argument.

EDIT "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

[ktttn]

Did you read my edit?  Do you believe God is incapable of making Himself known by simply willing it?  That he needs to rely on validation through attestments of men?

He can show himself at will. He does it all the time. You suppose he's doing it wrongly, or inadequately, on the premise that you understand the very role of mankind in eternity better than he does.

You also seem to enshrine faith beyond any religious person I've known... Faith itself  is not what saves you. Jesus is. It requires a leap of faith to trust that his forgiveness is for you and that his resurrection can be yours.

[John 20:29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
[30] Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
[31] But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

Faith was not a concept in the Aramaic. The word was one with Faithfulness, as in "trust in one who proves faithful." Atheists frequent the term as though it were a free, logical wildcard with which to make fools of us. It's insincere and doesn't lend itself to logical argument.

EDIT "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

...
accurately preserving those statements for millennia
...

nope

I feel obliged to again point out that you cannot testify your personal relationship with jesus without sounding exactly like a lofty, pretentious disconnected nutcase. Do you get that? Why not fix it?

[neurobox]

Can it be done?

You said it yourself, you are predisposed to that conclusion in my case, because I will not validate your mundane concept of deity.

"My satanism redefines deity into something so radically mundane as to render sacredness itself common. Of course, I maintain that this redefinition is needed for any valid discussion of god to be more than a creepy, overmedicated set of empty quotes and salesmanship of snipehunting gear."

If nothing can ever possibly be sacred to you, then we can only miscommunicate. Let it be.

[1] Therefore, since through God's mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. [2] Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. [3] And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. [4] The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. [5] For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. - 2Cr 4:1-5 NIV

MORE:

[41] "I do not accept glory from human beings, [42] but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. [43] I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. [44] How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God ? - Jhn 5:41-44 NIV

[crumbcake]

Did you read my edit?  Do you believe God is incapable of making Himself known by simply willing it?  That he needs to rely on validation through attestments of men?

He can show himself at will. He does it all the time. You suppose he's doing it wrongly, or inadequately, on the premise that you understand the very role of mankind in eternity better than he does.

Not at all.  He's doing it exactly as he is doing it.  Where did I imply that God has failed in any way?

You also seem to enshrine faith beyond any religious person I've known...

Two possible explanations for that:  I'm wrong, or you don't know anyone worth knowing.  The latter is a bit harsh, but i'm afraid i'm still betting on it.

Faith itself  is not what saves you. Jesus is. It requires a leap of faith to trust that his forgiveness is for you and that his resurrection can be yours.

Leap of faith?  Have you been reading Kierkegaard on a full stomach?  Regardless, i'm not sure exactly what you're addressing here.

[John 20:29] Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
[30] Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
[31] But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Corinthians, 18-25, KJV.

^^^^Please tell me what these lines mean to you

Faith was not a concept in the Aramaic. The word was one with Faithfulness, as in "trust in one who proves faithful." Atheists frequent the term as though it were a free, logical wildcard with which to make fools of us. It's insincere and doesn't lend itself to logical argument.

Now we're getting somewhere.  "Faith does not lend itself to logical argument."  Thanks for not making me reach for pointless links to definition that's appropriate in theological context.

EDIT "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

Edit:  Bolded (not "emboldened," FFS!  That's just... EWWW!) the text in Corin. quote.

[neurobox]

...

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Corinthians, 18-25, KJV.

^^^^Please tell me what these lines mean to you

You seem to have been asserting that Almighty God don't Need no Stinkin' Scrolls. Well no, and he doesn't "need" anyone or anything either. Is he not also free to chose sovereignly which way to go about something, or should he check with you first, to make sure it's what you're expecting?

Without a written record, any testimony of God is strictly anecdotal, and can be dismissed as foolishness. Even that which was written was dismissed when it was inconvenient. There are times and places for both.

"You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life."

Faith was not a concept in the Aramaic. The word was one with Faithfulness, as in "trust in one who proves faithful." Atheists frequent the term as though it were a free, logical wildcard with which to make fools of us. It's insincere and doesn't lend itself to logical argument.

Now we're getting somewhere.  "Faith does not lend itself to logical argument."  Thanks for not making me reach for pointless links to definition that's appropriate in theological context.

That's not quite what I said, is it?

EDIT "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal."

Brain exercise: How could something eternal be seen in the temporal?
IMHO, Spirit is exactly that duality which can make the leap, so to speak.

[crumbcake]

...

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Corinthians, 18-25, KJV.

^^^^Please tell me what these lines mean to you

You seem to have been asserting that Almighty God don't Need no Stinkin' Scrolls. Well no, and he doesn't "need" anyone or anything either. Is he not also free to chose sovereignly which way to go about something, or should he check with you first, to make sure it's what you're expecting?

Lol.  No, i never said He has to do anything.  Please re-read my replies to figure out where you got that idea.
 

Without a written record, any testimony of God is strictly anecdotal, and can be dismissed as foolishness.

"...it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."  Do you even bother reading?  If not, I'll stop replying.  I've asked you a simple question:  What do these words mean to you (Corinthians, 18-25).  You didn't answer me, nor, it appears, even bother reading. [snip]  Please, re-read & answer.

Edit:  This is the depressing structure of "the interwebz debate": (Kidz, cut & paste this handy guide!)

1.  Find some tedious sucker, crumbcake in this case, to punctually (point by point) reply to your post.
2.  With each consecutive rebuttal, ignore all the points you're unable/unwilling to address.  Make sure to miss the point of the remaining few.
3. ? ? ?
4.  Not really sure.

[neurobox]

No, that IS the answer. Preaching = anecdotal = foolishness > wisdom of man.

If I must spell it out, I'm at your service.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

The gospel means redemption to those who believe it, but is completely unnecessary foolishness to those who see no need for redemption, don't see their sin (despite the law), or even equate themselves with God,

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

Refers to Isaiah, written before Christ, "Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

The context is of God lecturing the religious:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught."

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For all the astonishing things God had done for the Hebrew people, they loved their traditions and ego-boosting positions more than Him. He'd rather pour himself out among those who would be grateful.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

The stumblingblock refers again to Isaiah, which Jesus adds to here: [43] "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit. [44] Anyone who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; anyone on whom it falls will be crushed." - Mat 21:43-44 NIV

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." Corinthians, 18-25, KJV.

This leads us to the doctrine of election, referred to with great consistency in the NT, which is too often mangled by the likes of Westboro as though we weren't on the hook to preach to "every creature."

[5] So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. [6] And if by grace, then it cannot be based on works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. [7] What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, [8] as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that could not see and ears that could not hear, to this very day." [9] And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them. [10] May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see, and their backs be bent forever." [11] Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. [12] But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their full inclusion bring! - Romans 11:5-12 NIV

EDIT: It is tedious, isn't it? If I miss a point it's not avoidance, just either missed it or don't have the time.