Righteousness through faith
-
R they to let out? I wll take for a weekend if it's available?Originally posted by Icemoon:I also stayed there before.
We owned two units, the suite at the ground level and a room in the tower.
-
paiseh .. i meant to say we booked two units.Originally posted by norey:R they to let out? I wll take for a weekend if it's available? 
We don't own the room like it is our property.
-
BTW have a good week end and don't for get to Vote...before U leave...Originally posted by Icemoon:paiseh .. i meant to say we booked two units.
We don't own the room like it is our property. 
[/b] -
Wrong answer... the worse kind of laws are those you make for yourself.Originally posted by norey:You have to ask PAP to make new laws.. I 'm only a small fly -
U cann't be right..don't know mE?Originally posted by casino_king:Wrong answer... the worse kind of laws are those you make for yourself.
(did I ever state what laws i made for myself?)
Besides i know U r such a great lawyer
* can U plse define to our understanding waht U meant ..
*referring to to worst laws..or jsut simply
What's laws meant to your great understanding?
BTW if U wanna a break and discuss theological laws ..welcome,
ie. Man made the worse kind of laws agreed...
therefore we don't need to fulfil all obligations of the Man-made laws?
right?
-
Originally posted by norey:
Oh yes I forgot "theological laws" are laws made by "God," not man and you yourself never made any laws for yourself... if was your "conscience," not you sorry for the error.
U cann't be right..don't know [b]mE?
(did I ever state what laws i made for myself?)
Besides i know U r such a great lawyer
* can U plse define to our understanding waht U meant ..
*referring to to worst laws..or jsut simply
What's laws meant to your great understanding?
BTW if U wanna a break and discuss theological laws ..welcome,
ie. Man made the worse kind of laws agreed...
therefore we don't need to fulfil all obligations of the Man-made laws?
right?
[/b] -
sadly to say......i wanted to post this very long time ago....but just didn't know how to put it in words..........righteousness through faith.....yeah sure....
but how many practice this???????
a word that is commonly used in tongue but seldom used in practical or shown in action.
-
Are we mistaking it for a pratice?
Perhaps it is a notion? An implication of which one cannot be deemed right unless he starts to accept a certain curious state of mind that makes it possible for him to be right? -
Dun worry......mebbe u haven seen yet? There may not be many...but I am sure there are ...Originally posted by gohkatkat:sadly to say......i wanted to post this very long time ago....but just didn't know how to put it in words..........righteousness through faith.....yeah sure....
but how many practice this???????
a word that is commonly used in tongue but seldom used in practical or shown in action. 
-
*My dear friend God never, never made any theological Laws .Originally posted by casino_king:Oh yes I forgot "theological laws" are laws made by "God," not man and you yourself never made any laws for yourself... if was your "conscience," not you sorry for the error.
ItÂ’s a man-made historical past in deviling with the Bible.. . at least Ur unknowing state is now admitted. Learn to be humble we all have such ignorance until someone shows the truth.. Conscience is what God put in our mind, if we have any...some still claim to have none, can't blame them who lived like animals like even in our little city: the fittest survival is an animal concept. Hardly any conscience!
Conscience BTW is when we can tell what is right and wrong...like when we cheated, everyone may not know but our conscience will always says it's wrong to cheat...
LAWS are all made in respect to this total conscience in a collective society, and we call it rules..then when we become constituted as a nation.. we have legal LAWS...so I'm trying explain to kids..plse, if you already know it all then
tell me it 's not to insult your IQ or intelligence! -
*clap clap*
i might have done it differently, but i could not have said it better myself norey! -
Thanks SingaporeTyrannosaur.. actually this topic of Man's right standing point to fthe ultimate failure of Man to acquire or posit any right relationship ..and that's why the topic of integrity is a horizontal one, for since the first Man until now who can stand up to measure with God's standard? No even Job, Noah or Moses or even the friend of God -Abraham, all of them are ''by grace'' or ''mercies of God''Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:*clap clap*
i might have done it differently, but i could not have said it better myself norey!
shall we elaborate further..? best next topic or another occasion..bye! -
Originally posted by norey:
For someone who can write so well I am surprise that you cannot recognise sarcasm.
*My dear friend God never, never made [b] any theological Laws .
ItÂ’s a man-made historical past in deviling with the Bible.. . at least Ur unknowing state is now admitted. Learn to be humble we all have such ignorance until someone shows the truth.. Conscience is what God put in our mind, if we have any...some still claim to have none, can't blame them who lived like animals like even in our little city: the fittest survival is an animal concept. Hardly any conscience!
Conscience BTW is when we can tell what is right and wrong...like when we cheated, everyone may not know but our conscience will always says it's wrong to cheat...
LAWS are all made in respect to this total conscience in a collective society, and we call it rules..then when we become constituted as a nation.. we have legal LAWS...so I'm trying explain to kids..plse, if you already know it all then
tell me it 's not to insult your IQ or intelligence![/b]
I am surprised that you hold such fervent belief in conscience.
The psychologist Sigmund Freud regarded conscience as originating in the superego, which takes its cue from our parents during childhood. According to Freud, the consequence of not obeying our conscience is "guilt," which can be a factor in the development of neurosis. Click HERE
Your statement "Conscience is what God put in our mind" is at best debatable in that Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learnt, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. One person can feel a moral duty to go to war, another can feel a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances. Click HERE -
As for the part of your post on God ect... you will do well to come here and join us. CLICK HERE
I tell you why... in your churches and temples, the senior pastors have a duty not to stumble you. In fact it is in the Bible... I think something about not eating meat offered to idols for your sake?
As a result, you cannot grow, cannot mature, you will always remain a baby.
As far as I am concern... I go with Jesus: The truth will set you free." -
Originally posted by casino_king:
u r here!
As for the part of your post on God ect... you will do well to come here and join us. CLICK HERE
I tell you why... in your churches and temples, the senior pastors have a duty not to stumble you. In fact it is in the Bible... I think something about not eating meat offered to idols for your sake?
As a result, you cannot grow, cannot mature, you will always remain a baby.
As far as I am concern... I go with Jesus: [b]The truth will set you free."[/b]
continue here leh...better for ratings -
Hello, I got work to do one you know?Originally posted by laoda99:u r here!
continue here leh...better for ratings -
u really counsellor har?Originally posted by casino_king:Hello, I got work to do one you know? -
Originally posted by casino_king:
Please bear with my long post.
[b]For someone who can write so well I am surprise that you cannot recognise sarcasm.
I am surprised that you hold such fervent belief in conscience.
The psychologist Sigmund Freud regarded conscience as originating in the superego, which takes its cue from our parents during childhood. According to Freud, the consequence of not obeying our conscience is "guilt," which can be a factor in the development of neurosis. Click HERE
Interesting you should mention Freud, but I wonder if you have considered the implications of the stance you are taking.
Firstly Freud often argues from a position that is not unlike the religious point of view, the difference is that he offers a materialist alternative to many of the things that humans might consider to be desires placed in us by something beyond. Let's admit for once that he has built up a very convincing case. But there is a large problem in wanting to adopt this view:
In Freud's point of view everything we do (including me typing this reply now) is simply a suppressed and edited version of the sex drive (all actions are done for the ultimate sake of sex), indeed as you have quoted Freud arguing that even such things that gives a person a 'moral' compass all simply come from the superego... then indeed morality and guilt are just things that are totally naturalistic and can (and should) be controlled by the application of neurological suggestion and science.
Freud of course, is arguing from a position that there is no such thing as traditional morality, they are all simply guises of the ego and sex drive. The crux of his argument rests totally on the notion that things we consider above us like conscience and morality have nothing else but natualistic and nonrational origins, and hence we cannot consider them to be rational or worth listening to at all.
Just as one considers another person's pacifism to be irrational if it is simply based on cowardice, or another person's argument for the value of properity invalid because he is simply loves his riches to an irrational extent. Seemingly rational causes are rejected if they come from irrational causes. Freud attacks traditional morality on these grounds (that they come from irrational causes), with wide success.
Now the problem is this, if our conscience is really a product of the superego and simply a perverted sex drive kind of thing... why should we listen to it at all? It is not any more rational then my liking for chee chong fun or some other kind of food. If Freud's argument was indeed correct, then the implication is that there was no need to listen to the conscience at all, since it is a naturalistic process, another kind of raw material subject to our desires to change it... rather then us being a slave to it and the guilt it produces.
Firstly I'm not sure you might be tempted to buy such an implication, because while it may be tempting to think of conscience as naturalistic... yet we insist on not putting naturalistic conclusions to it. If I kill another person's family and my conscience pricks me, I could just dismiss it as some trick of the mind that my parents put in me when I was a child. Indeed in Freud's universe there is no right and wrong, and I'm not sure you would buy it. Being classified as intelligent apes is one thing, but considering ourselves as nothing but intelligent apes is yet another. The distinction is important to make.
Now it is obvious that we are creatures of flesh and blood, and obviously to work in us such a thing as a conscience has to be applied in the physical mind in some areas or another (some areas of the mind have been mapped to handle our notion of right and wrong), and of course the physical mind has probably to be taught in some ways to exercise this notion as well. But one suspects it might be folly to consider that the sense of conscience is nothing but these activations and movements of atoms in the brain and the nursery. One might as well denounce maths as activations of the brain, or running as no more meaingful then the moving of limbs. Obviously they are not!
It seems to me that in the activation of conscience we are grasping (or trying to grasp) some higher universal law. And the important thing is that we seem to, and in fact must believe that this higher universal law is absolute, and applies to all beings... and somehow we must listen to it.
C.S. Lewis noted that a lot of dogs don't understand pointing. They may see the finger pointing but don't get what it is about. They may sniff the finger or lick it. But the dog sees and experience the same facts as we do... in fact the dog's world is often all facts and very little understand of how they work (except in doggy notions). Now his concern was that we were encouraging such a doglike mind in regarding science, having all the facts but never really considering how to put them together, except in a very doglike way. Freud might have sucessfully decoded (though many scientists disagree with him on the idea that ego and sex are responsible for all behaviour) the physcial facts behind the conscience... but he might have very well missed much of what it's about.
I hope you consider this. -
Your statement "Conscience is what God put in our mind" is at best debatable in that [b]Conscience can prompt different people in quite different directions, depending on their beliefs, suggesting that while the capacity for conscience is probably genetically determined, its subject matter is probably learnt, or imprinted, like language, as part of a culture. One person can feel a moral duty to go to war, another can feel a moral duty to avoid war under any circumstances. Click HERE
What you note is true, but have you considered why? Won't a moments debate on right and wrong with anybody reveal the answer to this?
What you have noted seems not to me as the lack of a cohorent conscience in the human psyche, but rather the notion that to a great extent, many if not most people believe that there is a conscience that needs appealing to.
Firstly it seems to me that conscience is some kind of a need (Freud might term it guilt avoidance but I think it's much more then just that), and you are right to say that it probably has naturalistic and genetic and biological basis in the human mind.
But obviously what I will disagree is on the notion that conscience is just that, which seems to me a doglike way of looking at things. The finger extends to the dog and it only understands that, but it might miss out the fact that the whole point of the finger extending was to be to point to some object the master wanted it to pick up. I fear yet again it is this mindset we are taking.
First and foremost, I do not have any problems with the notion that conscience needs naturalistic renforcement, for after all we are also physical animals that need physical means. Even prayer must be done in a state of mind and body and worship involves the physical. This is so obvious it almost needs no statement.
The renforcement of the conscience through moral codes, taboos and laws set up in cultures is needed if anybody were to become a proper person of morality. But to argue that conscience and morality do not exist because of this is tatamount to arguing that something like eating food is equally vaporous and irrational. Hunger is obviously a biological response, and the ways in which it is met differs based on various cultures and imprinting. Some people like sweet, others salty. From the hamburger to the mee pok.
But yet again we realize that in the long run, some kinds of eating are not as proper as others. Some people might be by virtue of upbringing come to eat nothing but junk food and others might do otherwise. One only needs to take a step back to realize that eating actually applies to one absolute universal meta-law of hunger for all humans, and that different's individuals senses of eating either come closer, or further to that ultimate standard, and that ultimate standard cannot be defined by humans, but only found through their sense of eating.
It would be odd if the conscience had no basis in reality beyond simple physical alterations of sheer matter. Because this would mean saying that in effect it is an illusion, and not a sense that allows us to realize the reality of a kind of law not unlike heat and light which our skin and eyes discover. It seems to me that the conscience is yet again a sense of morality, and a morality that humans can only discover and not alter. Yes, morality may be subjective to humans, but this subjectiveness is perceptions of it's absolute nature, and does nothing to say that all points of view are equally valid unless they appeal to the metalaw in some way. -
You see, my stand is this. Competence and Logic. Logical conclusions base on competent analysis. With the Internet and Google - a lot of what was once unavailable information is now available.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Please bear with my long post.
Interesting you should mention Freud, but I wonder if you have considered the implications of the stance you are taking.
C.S. Lewis noted that a lot of dogs don't understand pointing. They may see the finger pointing but don't get what it is about. They may sniff the finger or lick it. But the dog sees and experience the same facts as we do... in fact the dog's world is often all facts and very little understand of how they work (except in doggy notions). Now his concern was that we were encouraging such a doglike mind in regarding science, having all the facts but never really considering how to put them together, except in a very doglike way. Freud might have sucessfully decoded (though many scientists disagree with him on the idea that ego and sex are responsible for all behaviour) the physcial facts behind the conscience... but he might have very well missed much of what it's about.
I hope you consider this.
Say medicine and health. We were once dependent on Doctors. You were once required to have faith in Doctors (the everyday kind of faith and not religious FAITH.) Sure googling will not make us medical experts but if one is to find out more about one's condition; googling will suffice. We need to find out about only 1 condition. The condition that is affecting us. No matter what our conscience say, we have to acquire the facts which is now mostly easily available and not depend on faith and conscience.
People with Good intentions do the biggest harm
faith and conscience had its day; while we cannot say that it is no longer needed, Competence and Logic. and by extension, education in critical thinking is the way forward.
My beef with religion is that it is clinging on to dogma. Worse of all, dogma developed thousand of years ago; for daily living
Jesus said: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:1-5
To me what this means is that you work it all out for yourself first and foremost. Get your life in order. Crystallize in your own head what you believe and what is the basis of your beliefs. If you are depenent on logic and evidence... that is good for daily living; but if you are dependant on logic and evidence in your belief in God, forget it my friends, there is a more excellent way.
I hope this addresses both your posts. -
but how many practice this??????? How did you ever come to the conclusion that Faith is a "practice?" Read the life of Abraham and understand what Faith in God means. Read the life of Buddha and understand what Enlightenment is. Understand what the Hindus mean when they worship the manifestation of God.Originally posted by gohkatkat:sadly to say......i wanted to post this very long time ago....but just didn't know how to put it in words..........righteousness through faith.....yeah sure....
but how many practice this???????
a word that is commonly used in tongue but seldom used in practical or shown in action.
Only then will you have an inkling of what Faith is and understand what "righteousness through faith" is.
Last but not least... it is pointless for you to understand what "righteousness through faith" is. You must have it. -
Is that a fact? Or a statement? Can you pull out the examples to show what you mean or is it just jargon to support your case? At a moments notice I can pull out a far longer list of evils that had been done by people having no intentions or evil intentions, and they seem to have done far larger harm to humanity then people with good intentions.Originally posted by casino_king:You see, my stand is this. [b]Competence and Logic. Logical conclusions base on competent analysis. With the Internet and Google - a lot of what was once unavailable information is now available.
Say medicine and health. We were once dependent on Doctors. You were once required to have faith in Doctors (the everyday kind of faith and not religious FAITH.) Sure googling will not make us medical experts but if one is to find out more about one's condition; googling will suffice. We need to find out about only 1 condition. The condition that is affecting us. No matter what our conscience say, we have to acquire the facts which is now mostly easily available and not depend on faith and conscience.[/b][/quote]
Truly pragmatic, but I think you have overlapped conscience with dogma, which I do not think for a moment would hold up to further scrutiny. Dogma (which is my beef too) will not hold up to progress and change, but conscience has to remain a constant irregardless of how much we progress, lest we no longer consider ourselves men at all. This is why:
First and formost I am unsure of how one is to make any desision involving right and wrong at all without a sense of conscience. After all one's conscience is one own's sense of right and wrong just as his eyes are his sense of sight.
Now this sense of right and wrong can be outdated, for example he might still believe that cameras are evil because they 'steal' the soul or that people who float on water are witches because they repel baptism. As outdated and wrong as these ideas may turn out to be later, what that has not changed one bit is a concept of right and wrong, of improper and proper.
As I might point out, it is no good to have the facts if one does not know what to make of them. There still needs to be some metalaw governing how we consider the facts and how to act on them. And indeed how we act on them is a matter of much debate that cannot be solved by sheer science. If it was then there would be not so many ethical debates in science. Abortion, embryo stem cell research, cloning, eugenics are all hard science, but they have a hotly contested ethical debate over the very same facts.
And also I do not believe that having facts for a moment removes the needs for a conscience, but rather it hones it. For example I may see a shady looking man talking to a kid and feel that something is not right (and that I have to do something about it). I get even more suspicious, with a desire to do something if I see him trying to take the kid away. But these things may suddenly vanish when I see him take the kid up the his wife and they all hug like a family.
In all of these things, you might realize that gathering all the facts didn't remove my conscience at all, rather it was my conscience that was telling me how to act on all these facts. From being suspicious to wanting to intervene to leaving them alone.
If it was dogma you were refering to, for example the belief that all men with tattoos should not be seen near kids, then it was what that would have been destroyed. But certainly not conscience had been affected for one bit.People with Good intentions do the biggest harm
And also I cannot be certain what you are suggesting.
You are saying perhaps that we should not hold 'good' intentions of any kind, and instead rely on sheer logic and facts to make our choices. Fair enough, but then again what drives us to use this approach? We cannot be motivated to use this approach unless we are sure it is better or more good then the rest, and in using them it is for the 'better' good of humanity. Yet again we have just pushed back the instance of good intentions for others back, but never divorced it at all. In fact one is arguing in a circle.
And there is still a question of how to consider facts and why we should consider them that way.
[quote]faith and conscience had its day; while we cannot say that it is no longer needed, Competence and Logic. and by extension, education in critical thinking is the way forward. Hmm, I hope you realize what you are saying, which is just another way of saying 'competence of conscience'. A man does not set traps in the cellar if he does not believe that there are any rats in there, but he does if he does believe. That is a competence of exercising basic conscience.
It is not my belief that logic can be divorced from conscience... in fact looking into all our conscience-promptings one can see a higher logic. In fact it is often conscience that serves as a help against lower-logic functions. For example I may have a logic to preserve my own life from any risk but yet there is another logic (knowing I am a strong swimmer) to save a man from drowning. Now what is the more logical choice?
It seems that the sense of conscience guides me to choose between my logics, as a kind of buffer against basic logical reasoning by appealing to a higher reasoning that I cannot decern, but yet is entirely logical.
It would be dangerous to suggest that higher logics are of no consquence to us if we cannot percieve them, which is the same as saying that if we have no inking of the law of gravity at all it is quite alright to jump off a building.
Unfortunately what sometimes one is suggesting that there should be no decider of our actions beyond what we can observe. Which would be very dangerous. If I view man as just a raw material, and many of my instincts of right and wrong subject to change because they are just instincts... then anything could happen. I could quote a few great examples.My beef with religion is that it is clinging on to dogma. Worse of all, dogma developed thousand of years ago; for daily living
I am never sure if Christianity was meant to be lived out on dogma... is that an effect of humans or the faith itself? True Christians in a sense I have yet to seen to be the kind that are domgatic about anything, and the truths they cling to are because of personal conviction (like you suggested as a way to live life) instead of 'because the church said so'.
And unfortunately if one studies paleontology, you will know there is plenty of dogma in science as well. In fact sometimes very few 'scientific' people actually pratice the true scientific method (until some revolution comes about), but does it falsify the whole concept of science? The existence of dogma seems to me an inherent part of the human psyce to generate absolutes more then that which are actually there, but in no way the generation of imaginary absolutes decry the existence of real absolutes.To me what this means is that you work it all out for yourself first and foremost. Get your life in order. Crystallize in your own head what you believe and what is the basis of your beliefs. If you are depenent on logic and evidence... that is good for daily living; but if you are dependant on logic and evidence in your belief in God, forget it my friends, there is a more excellent way.
Hmm... I might be tempted to poke a few apparent holes in your shining example of the excellent way, but I might like to leave it up to you to think about it, honestly perhaps.
I hope this addresses both your posts.
[/b]
Where do you get this notion of excellent from? Yourself? From where is it derived? If the whole world really lives like that what would happen? And more importantly would we have a right to say anything about that.
Do men need to appeal to a higer law above themselves? I still believe the answer is yes. -
And how did the conscience in man get there? Did the conscience in man and will the conscience of man tells him the same thing when he sees or do something 2000 years ago and 2000 years hence?Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Truly pragmatic, but I think you have overlapped conscience with dogma, which I do not think for a moment would hold up to further scrutiny. Dogma (which is my beef too) will not hold up to progress and change, but conscience has to remain a constant irregardless of how much we progress, lest we no longer consider ourselves men at all. This is why:
First and formost I am unsure of how one is to make any desision involving right and wrong at all without a sense of conscience. After all one's conscience is one own's sense of right and wrong just as his eyes are his sense of sight.
Now this sense of right and wrong can be outdated, for example he might still believe that cameras are evil because they 'steal' the soul or that people who float on water are witches because they repel baptism. As outdated and wrong as these ideas may turn out to be later, what that has not changed one bit is a concept of right and wrong, of improper and proper.
As I might point out, it is no good to have the facts if one does not know what to make of them. There still needs to be some metalaw governing how we consider the facts and how to act on them. And indeed how we act on them is a matter of much debate that cannot be solved by sheer science. If it was then there would be not so many ethical debates in science. Abortion, embryo stem cell research, cloning, eugenics are all hard science, but they have a hotly contested ethical debate over the very same facts.
And also I do not believe that having facts for a moment removes the needs for a conscience, but rather it hones it. For example I may see a shady looking man talking to a kid and feel that something is not right (and that I have to do something about it). I get even more suspicious, with a desire to do something if I see him trying to take the kid away. But these things may suddenly vanish when I see him take the kid up the his wife and they all hug like a family.
In all of these things, you might realize that gathering all the facts didn't remove my conscience at all, rather it was my conscience that was telling me how to act on all these facts. From being suspicious to wanting to intervene to leaving them alone.
If it was dogma you were refering to, for example the belief that all men with tattoos should not be seen near kids, then it was what that would have been destroyed. But certainly not conscience had been affected for one bit. -
Did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot think to themselves: "Hmm I think I want to go down in history as embodiment of evil. I would like to do what the world would consider Atrocities against Humanity. Yes that is what I like, yes, that is what I want?"Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:People with Good intentions do the biggest harm
Is that a fact? Or a statement? Can you pull out the examples to show what you mean or is it just jargon to support your case? At a moments notice I can pull out a far longer list of evils that had been done by people having no intentions or evil intentions, and they seem to have done far larger harm to humanity then people with good intentions.
And also I cannot be certain what you are suggesting.
You are saying perhaps that we should not hold 'good' intentions of any kind, and instead rely on sheer logic and facts to make our choices. Fair enough, but then again what drives us to use this approach? We cannot be motivated to use this approach unless we are sure it is better or more good then the rest, and in using them it is for the 'better' good of humanity. Yet again we have just pushed back the instance of good intentions for others back, but never divorced it at all. In fact one is arguing in a circle.
And there is still a question of how to consider facts and why we should consider them that way. .
Please be a little bit less naive.
For clear and immediate examples.... open up the newspapers and read about the suicide bombers. -
It is my fault; after all that talk on Competence and Logic... I went on to talk about the true nature and purpose of FAITH (not the everyday variety)Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Hmm... I might be tempted to poke a few apparent holes in your shining example of the excellent way, but I might like to leave it up to you to think about it, honestly perhaps. Wink
Where do you get this notion of excellent from? Yourself? From where is it derived? If the whole world really lives like that what would happen? And more importantly would we have a right to say anything about that.
Do men need to appeal to a higer law above themselves? I still believe the answer is yes.
I was trying to say that religious laws, dogma and religious practice does not constitute FAITH. That there is a more excellent way.
I was getting back to the topic: Righteousness through faith
That Righteousness through faith is indeed the more excellent way than Righteousness through law and religious practice.
Think about this. What is this Faith that is divorced from dogma, religious practice and religious laws?