| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > And These Three Remain |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 14 2004, 12:59 PM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > And These Three Remain... Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 11 2004, 05:48 PM As a believer, there are so many facets of life I really appreciate. Not to say that non-believers don’t have various facets, or lack appreciation. Simply put, there is something that being a believer does for me when I reflect on life. Of all these beautiful facets in my life – life as a diamond if you will – I am overwhelmed by the presence of these three in particular: Faith, Hope, and Love. Most of you know that Paul addresses these three in 1 Corinthians. I don’t intend to transcribe it here, or attempt to provide a counterfeit to the “original”. However, I felt inclined to expound on the definition and details surrounding these terms; in an attempt to clarify these matters. I think discussing them might indirectly impose the desire for individual/personal reflection – which is always good, because it usually demands some sort of conscious response. Faith Faith has become somewhat of a distorted idea among many people today. Its definition has been diluted with preconceived notions, and the result has left us with an incomplete understanding of what faith, really signifies. We’re quick to add certain words and phrases to it, when describing it’s attributes to another person. Words like: “blind” or, “leap of”, or even “religious” become part of the equation. Speaking of faith as if it can only be referred to in the context of religion, and more so in the slant of something foolish. Our good friend Webster defines faith as: QUOTE 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. 2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. 3. A set of principles or beliefs. The Bible defines it as: QUOTE “…the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1 I really like the translation the Message version provides: QUOTE “The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It's our handle on what we can't see. The act of faith is what distinguished our ancestors, set them above the crowd. By faith, we see the world called into existence by God's word, what we see created by what we don't see.” Hebrews 11:1-3 I’ve heard many define it as, “the opposite of intelligence” (or a rendition thereof). So, what is faith really? Of all the definitions I’ve provided here, I think the one most controversial would be that of the Biblical one. Therefore, I will elucidate accordingly. Let’s break it down a bit. To the believer, faith is the very essence of knowledge - not its counterpart. Our faith is based on the knowledge of what is evident, rather than the unknown. Our faith is the evidence, of an “unseen” God. I recently heard an illustration that demonstrated this definition in a more identifiable manner. I'll do my best to reproduce it here: The lottery. Let's imagine you were to meander down to your local mini-mart, and opt to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket. Before you take out your lucky quarter and begin scratching away with it, do you think you'd have an identifiable hope to possess the winning ticket? Yes. This can be identified as the substance of something hoped for. However, do you have any unseen evidence to confirm that you would win? No, but there’s enough evidence to maintain the hope, which is why you bought the ticket in the first place (someone’s gonna win!). Nevertheless, you can only hope to win. Now, what if we took the same story, and gave it a twist: We gave you X-ray vision! You could see behind the “scratch-off” area, and patiently wait until you could see the winning ticket. You purchase the winning ticket. Do you still have the substance of something hoped for? Yes, you still hope to win! But, isn’t it a different kind of hope now? Wouldn’t it be considered more of a knowledge that you would win? You are able to see the evidence that remains unseen to the rest of the world! This knowledge is likened to the faith of the believer. We have more than a hope (which is good in itself); we have a knowledge based on what the “unseen” has revealed. This revelation is not just for the believer, but to every person who seeks to utilize their “X-ray vision”. Hope Isn’t this a beautiful word? Everybody wants something to hope for – regardless of their beliefs. Hope is what drives us to continue our pursuit of life. Everybody hopes for something, in this we are all the same. It’s what we hope for that distinguishes one person from another. There are some very noble and wonderful things to hope for. A long life, a healthy family, a lucrative career, an intimate relationship or friendship...love. These are all noteworthy and good things to hope for. We’re all well aware of the claims of Christianity. We all know what believers claim to hope for, it’s no secret. Even though we have an awareness of it, I would like to expound on it a bit. I guess the best way to illustrate this, would be to share a story that reverberated this hope directly to me; it re-confirmed and re-identified what my hope was grounded in. A few weeks ago, I was helping a friend lead music at a Bible study. One of the songs we played was entitled “It Might be Today”. The song depicts the possibility of Jesus returning today for His church, the believers, His “bride”, and the hope that we have in His coming. As we played this song, I looked out among the crowd at all these people, watching them sing this song from the depths of their souls, to the God that they served, the God that they loved. My eyes stopped, and rested on this young woman at the back of the crowd. Her eyes were closed, her hands were open in front of her as if to present an offering, and as she sang this song to her Master, she smiled. I stared at her, not because of her beauty, but because of the beauty of the hope that resonated from every ounce of her being. Her smile exhibited this undeniable joy, this incredible peace, this unspeakable hope. And I realized again, that there is something well beyond this life to hope for. Hope is a beautiful word. But it is even more beautiful, when we are able to experience it. Love Ah love. Everybody wants it, so little understand it. Now, don’t get me wrong here – I’m no authority on the definition of love! If anything, I’ve discovered that I’m still learning about it myself. In light of this, I think most of us would agree that much of society’s (if not our own) understanding of love is still one to be determined. Since it is such a great topic, I would be remiss if we didn’t attempt to gain some insight on it here. Negligence to address the definition of love might only prove to further destroy our identification of it. Thus, the following is only a depiction of how I understand it at this point. So I continue... Love, is a verb. It’s an action word. It demands more than lip service, feelings, or lust. In fact, love is none of those things. Love isn’t a feeling – love creates feelings. Love takes time, yet it can be identified in a moment. It is produced over years – even a lifetime – yet it can be accomplished in a single act. Love can seemingly be somewhat of a paradox. Going back to our good friend for a definition: QUOTE 1. To have a feeling of love for; to regard with affection or good will; as, to love one's children and friends; to love one's country; to love one's God. 2. To regard with passionate and devoted affection, as that of one sex for the other. 3. To take delight or pleasure in; to have a strong liking or desire for, or interest in; to be pleased with; to like; as, to love books; to love adventures. And of course, the Bible (read this great translation of it): QUOTE “If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate. If I speak God's Word with power, revealing all his mysteries and making everything plain as day, and if I have faith that says to a mountain, "Jump," and it jumps, but I don't love, I'm nothing. If I give everything I own to the poor and even go to the stake to be burned as a martyr, but I don't love, I've gotten nowhere. So, no matter what I say, what I believe, and what I do, I'm bankrupt without love. Love never gives up. Love cares more for others than for self. Love doesn't want what it doesn't have. Love doesn't strut, Doesn't have a swelled head, Doesn't force itself on others, Isn't always "me first," Doesn't fly off the handle, Doesn't keep score of the sins of others, Doesn't revel when others grovel, Takes pleasure in the flowering of truth, Puts up with anything, Trusts God always, Always looks for the best, Never looks back, But keeps going to the end. Love never dies.” 1 Corinthians 13:1-8 (MSG) When discussing love, I hear most people describe it as a feeling, a strong emotion. This is definitely understandable, as we begin to feel so much for another person. We develop, as Webster said, “a feeling of love for” something or somebody. But I would argue that this is a different kind of love. This is a love that is described as being available to not only a person, but an object, or a place. I wouldn’t compare my definition of love for my family to that of my love for a song, or my favorite vacation spot. I'm sure you would agree, this would be a mistake. Therefore, I am compelled to discuss a deeper kind of love. One that is defined accordingly to the love we share for another person. If this kind of love is a feeling, where does the feeling come from? I would argue that it is a direct result of the actions surrounding the relationship. You show a person that you love them. Again, it’s much more than lip service, or feelings. This is the kind of love we all search for, but very few ever find. When we look at the two definitions given, both Webster and the Bible identify actions within them. Webster says, “To regard with passionate and devoted affection, to take delight or pleasure in, to have strong interest, etc.” The Bible says love “Never gives up (is patient), cares more for others than for self (kind), doesn’t want what it doesn’t have (isn’t envious), doesn’t strut (isn’t prideful/doesn’t boast), always trusts, always hopes, never dies (fails).” Friends, all these are action words and phrases. The Bible says, "For God so loved the world that He gave...". This is love, put into action. It’s that old adage that, “Actions speak louder than words.” It is certainly true in the case of love. In my life, to experience these three facets directly, through the lives of other people is a wondrous thing. As a person, I am grateful for these beautiful qualities that alone, make life worth living. As a believer, to experience these three facets firsthand through the life of Jesus Christ, is indescribable. And I am thankful to God for His love for us, and for enabling us to practice the very attributes He has demonstrated to us. “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13:13 I love each one of you here, and thank God for this place. =Veritas= Posted by: moorezw Mar 11 2004, 06:27 PM 1 Corinthians 13 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. I had it read during my wedding ceremony. If only more Christians took it to heart... Posted by: Cerise Mar 11 2004, 06:47 PM “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” 1 Corinthians 13:13 Some days I believe this. And then again, some days it's more like this: Ah love, let us be true To one another! for the world, which seems To lie before us like a land of dreams, So various, so beautiful, so new, Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain; And we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night. - Matthew Arnold, Dover Beach Actually, my bible translation says "Charity" instead of "Love" in that verse, which is kind of weird, since I don't really think charity and love are interchangable words. Posted by: BillJ Mar 11 2004, 06:59 PM QUOTE (Veritas) Let's imagine you were to meander down to your local mini-mart, and opt to spend a dollar on a lottery ticket. Before you take out your lucky quarter and begin scratching away with it, do you think you'd have an identifiable hope to possess the winning ticket? Yes. This can be identified as the substance of something hoped for. However, do you have any unseen evidence to confirm that you would win? No, but there’s enough evidence to maintain the hope, which is why you bought the ticket in the first place (someone’s gonna win!). I understand what you are trying to communicate but it is difficult to use an analogy to refer to faith in the Bible when it is nothing more than faith in its words. I would have to say that there is less faith involved in buying a lottery ticket than there is in believing in the Bible. We know from experience that if you get the matching numbers they are legally required to pay you the money. We also can use math to find out the chances we have at winning. Posted by: chefranden Mar 11 2004, 07:16 PM =Veritas=, Nice sermon. I almost wish it were true at least for your sake. (sigh) QUOTE The Bible says love “Never gives up (is patient), cares more for others than for self (kind), doesn’t want what it doesn’t have (isn’t envious), doesn’t strut (isn’t prideful/doesn’t boast), always trusts, always hopes, never dies (fails).” Love:XianGod doesn't live up to this. If you want to insist that his love is only for the chosen, you must admit that he didn't have any patience with Israel. Lot's wife was hardly an example of patient love. Job? Ya right! The Amalekites? Balls, he wasn't even patient with the animals. He wasn't even patient with his chosen King, Saul. When Saul balked at finishing the job, did XianGod take him aside and say, "Now look Saul it is really important that you rip the guts out of these babies. Now, please go try it again. Later when you are suffering from bouts of PTSD I will have Sam bring this nice young shepard boy to sing for you and you will feel better for awhile. There now, that's a good King get back to work." No way! It was, "Hell, I'm taking the kingdom away from this whimp. I'm going to give it to a real terrorist." Hope The title of your song should be more like “It Might be Today: but probably not”. If I had seen the woman, I would have wept for her delusion, and yours. Faith: I think that you must have forgotten that many here have lived with this faith and know that it is with out substance. Now imagine this: I don't buy any lottery tickets, because I know that the house wins. That is there is nothing in it for me. Two years ago Sweetie and I went to Los Vegas. (If you haven't been there save your money. It is just a gigantic mall with slot machines and lots whores, and no place to sit except in front of a slot machine.) Anyway since we were there we decided to let the house have a buck so we could see the pretty wheels go around, rest our feet, and be able to say we did it. So we got twenty nickles and started playing. Well don't you know it we got carried away and ended up loosing $1.25. Damn they are tricky with their promises. Reminds me of religion in that way. I put in 10%+ of my puny minister's salary and 100% of myself in the slot for years. I had faith, lots of it. Nevertheless, the house got it all, just like Vegas got the whole $1.25. Your illustration is apt. chef Posted by: Reach Mar 11 2004, 07:17 PM QUOTE (Cerise @ Mar 11 2004, 09:47 PM) Actually, my bible translation says "Charity" instead of "Love" in that verse, which is kind of weird, since I don't really think charity and love are interchangable words. Veritas ~ Are you a teacher? I'll get back to you with the older Webster definitions from his first dictionary of 1828. (I own a copy. It's also online somewhere.) The definitions you are using are far more modern and lack some depth that the words once carried and he defines. Webster truly had a gift for the English language. Cerise ~ I like the old English of the King James Bible which uses the word charity which actually means a giving kind of love and/or proactive love and it may or may not encompass feelings. Thanks for your poem too. I have days like that. Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 11 2004, 09:30 PM QUOTE As a believer, there are so many facets of life I really appreciate. Not to say that non-believers don’t have various facets, or lack appreciation. Simply put, there is something that being a believer does for me when I reflect on life. Of all these beautiful facets in my life – life as a diamond if you will – I am overwhelmed by the presence of these three in particular: Faith, Hope, and Love. Listening to radiohead right now, I can only think of 3 things much too present in the world: delusion, despair and hatred. All those feelings you have are sweet... yet I am pissed. You wouldn't understand, anyways. Posted by: Outsider Mar 12 2004, 05:10 AM Is this love unconditional? How can it be when one is faced with the choice of reward or punishment? Posted by: Sanguine Mar 12 2004, 06:11 AM Quite an emotional outburst there. It's just a shame that they do not exist as you describe them. Posted by: Skankboy Mar 12 2004, 06:16 AM QUOTE 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony. 2. The assent of the mind to the statement or proposition of another, on the ground of the manifest truth of what he utters; firm and earnest belief, on probable evidence of any kind, especially in regard to important moral truth. 3. A set of principles or beliefs. I think you may be missing something here. QUOTE I’ve heard many define it as, “the opposite of intelligence” (or a rendition thereof). QUOTE To the believer, faith is the very essence of knowledge - not its counterpart. Our faith is based on the knowledge of what is evident, rather than the unknown. Our faith is the evidence, of an “unseen” God. By the first definition faith is a relationship between an individual (or group of individuals) and an authority figure. Thus I don't see how you can say it's being based on anything "evident" as that requires "evidence" to back it up. The reason why many here would say that is the opposite of intelligence is because of the "soley and implicitly on his authority part." We don't believe (or disbelieve) because someone else told us to. We ask for facts to back up assertions and don't rely soley on the authority of the messanger (that's called good science, by the way). QUOTE Now, what if we took the same story, and gave it a twist: We gave you X-ray vision! You could see behind the “scratch-off” area, and patiently wait until you could see the winning ticket. You purchase the winning ticket. Do you still have the substance of something hoped for? Yes, you still hope to win! If I know the outcome before it happens, it's not hope, its certainty. Personally I don't play the lottery (I feel it increases everybody else's chances of winning)... Posted by: channelcat Mar 12 2004, 01:19 PM QUOTE (Outsider @ Mar 12 2004, 05:10 AM) Is this love unconditional? How can it be when one is faced with the choice of reward or punishment? What?! I Love my wife unconditionally. But I would have diced her up had she not returned my affection when we met! Barbaric? Not according to the Xtian God's standard. I recently added another line to the childrens favorite "Jesus Loves Me" Sing along: Ahem.... Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so, fail to believe in His name, prepare for eternal flame. Yes Jesus Loves me, Yes Jesus loves me, yes, Jesus loves me, for the buybull tells me so. Be sure and teach this to your kids! Posted by: Lokmer Mar 12 2004, 02:59 PM Your exegesis (and most Evangelical exegesis) of Heb. 11:1 is a bit wonky. Using that passage to point to the validity of faith is like singing "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." Hebrews is not saying "what we believe in is true." It is saying "The fact that we believe is proof that it is true." The ancient church - particularly the Pauline faction - viewed faith as a gift from God that evidenced them as the elect. Hebrews is asserting that belief=proof, which is ridiculous on the face of it. If you read on in Hebrews you see that " QUOTE (NET Bible) 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a greater sacrifice than Cain, and through his faith6 he was commended as righteous, because God commended him for his offerings. And through his faith7 he still speaks, though he is dead. 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he did not see death, and he was not to be found because God took him up. For before his removal he had been commended as having pleased God. 11:6 Now without faith it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. 11:7 By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard8 constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family. Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. So, the same "faith" that constitutes evidence of Jesus constitutes evidence of Noah's ark, Enoch's ascention, Able's historicity. Hebrew here clearly states that it is only by this sort of belief that God is pleased. Now, for the person who wrote Hebrews, this is all well and good - s/he lived in a time where there was no difference between history and myth/legend outside of the Roman and Greek centers of learning far from the areas that Hebrew Christians frequented. But we now know that one of those people did not do what is spoken of him and probably did not exist (Noah), that Enoch was a borrowed sun God, that Able's story is another myth with no discernable history or veracity. For the writer of Hebrews, these things were part of the cultural fabric - s/he had no way of discerning between what was false and what was true other than gut reaction. And the things the author offers us as corroborative examples bring into serious question his/her ability to distinguish fact from fantasy. So Hebrews does give us a good window on what religious faith signifies. But one need only walk through a lunatic asylum to realize that what one is inclined to believe bears no relation to what actually is (Neitzche - paraphrased). Faith of the sort you are talking about is a thing that brings us wonderful feelings, but like cotton candy it has no true substance - and evangelicals admit as much when they attempt to use empricism to bolster "The Case for Faith/Christ." Caught between two worlds - no longer believing that this sort of faith is enough, but unable to let go of a method of knowledge that has no more value than any other simple pleasure (and far more drawbacks than most) - they concede the battle before it begins, but then hold tenaciously onto a faith tradition anyway. -Lokmer Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 12 2004, 03:44 PM Hello All, Good comments here, thanks to each of you. A lot to chew on already. I'm going out of town bright and early tomorrow morning, and I'll be on vacation for a week. So, I'll reply to each of you upon my return! And to my friend Lokmer - Um, can you not post on my topic's anymore? You're too smart for me. Everybody's welcome except Lokmer, ok? He always makes me wanna do this: OUCH! Just kidding! I might just have to see ya face to face and pick your brain apart piece-by-piece until you have nothing left! See you all soon! Cheers, =Veritas= Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 12 2004, 07:49 PM Lokmer's a she... right Lokmer? (is that your pic in your avatar) Posted by: Doug2 Mar 12 2004, 07:54 PM QUOTE (Baby Eater @ Mar 12 2004, 07:49 PM) Lokmer's a she... right Lokmer? (is that your pic in your avatar) http://www.pbase.com/rsweatt/the_gang Posted by: KJPee Mar 12 2004, 08:09 PM QUOTE Your exegesis (and most Evangelical exegesis) of Heb. 11:1 is a bit wonky. Using that passage to point to the validity of faith is like singing "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." Hebrews is not saying "what we believe in is true." It is saying "The fact that we believe is proof that it is true." The ancient church - particularly the Pauline faction - viewed faith as a gift from God that evidenced them as the elect. Hebrews is asserting that belief=proof, which is ridiculous on the face of it. If you read on in Hebrews you see that " Lokmer: I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand a word you say. Are you able to tone it down for us Homer Simpson types? (His exegesis is a bit wonky?) Kevin: Posted by: Doug2 Mar 12 2004, 08:12 PM You don't have to be a homer simpson. Dictionary.com Posted by: KJPee Mar 12 2004, 08:17 PM QUOTE You don't have to be a homer simpson. Dictionary.com Doug2: Oh. Like I can spell dicsionery?? Posted by: Baby Eater Mar 12 2004, 09:33 PM Weird doug... because I remember of a certain topic... Oh, I must have confused usernames. Anyways. Posted by: Reach Mar 12 2004, 09:37 PM QUOTE (KJPee @ Mar 12 2004, 11:09 PM) Lokmer: I don't mean to be rude but I don't understand a word you say. Are you able to tone it down for us Homer Simpson types? (His exegesis is a bit wonky?) Oh, come on Kevin. You mean to tell us you don't have a thorough grasp of evangelical, exegetical hermeneutics? Lokmer is a cinch to understand. Posted by: Doug2 Mar 12 2004, 11:38 PM QUOTE (Baby Eater @ Mar 12 2004, 09:33 PM) Weird doug... because I remember of a certain topic... Oh, I must have confused usernames. Anyways. I'm not catching what your saying so I'm just going to exercise my shoulders and face. Posted by: Lokmer Mar 13 2004, 12:52 AM Nope, I am a man. The avatar is a photo I took of a model that was working with me last July - I like it because it's very "birth of venus"-ish. Occasionally Kitty (sexkitten) will accidentally post under my name when I forget to log out, which can lead to a bit of confusion, but I usually edit down the posts when I notice -Lokmer Posted by: brick Mar 15 2004, 10:51 AM As an atheist I have no use for faith. Do want you want with that one, its all yours. Love and hope however are principles I have every intention of honoring to my fullest ability. For myself, I think my third-of-choice would be 'fidelity' because (if you knew me personally, you'd agree) I'm very much that kind of person: loyal (to a fault, I've been told). Thanks for sharing, Posted by: Reach Mar 15 2004, 11:13 AM brick- Semper fidelis I'm not sure there is such a thing as being "loyal to a fault." I'll have to dismantle that cliché and give it some further thought. What do you think? -reach Posted by: Redshift Mar 15 2004, 12:02 PM QUOTE I'm not sure there is such a thing as being "loyal to a fault." C'mon Reach - 'course it's possible. Think loyalty to the Klu Klux Klan, the Nazis, Bush etc... Posted by: Reach Mar 15 2004, 12:12 PM QUOTE (Redshift @ Mar 15 2004, 03:02 PM) QUOTE I'm not sure there is such a thing as being "loyal to a fault." C'mon Reach - 'course it's possible. Think loyalty to the Klu Klux Klan, the Nazis, Bush etc... Redshift, That's "loyal to a cause or ideology," the way I see it. There's an important distinction between that and "loyal to a fault." I was wondering if loyalty had a flawed extreme in and of itself. Oh, never mind. I'll shut up. This is just semantics and a roaming mind. Of course, I agree with you! Silly reach! Posted by: Lokmer Mar 15 2004, 02:31 PM Being another who is often described as "loyal to a fault," I think it can happen. Loyalty to a fault comes when obligations of loyalty are not balanced with an honest appraisal of the cost of that loyalty to yourself of others around you. There are times when that cost is astronomical, and you chose it anyway because the loyalty is more important - and being aware of it allows you to mitigate (somewhat) the cost to others not directly involved. But there are others when the cost is too great, and the choice is forced between loyalty and wisdom. I have been in positions where I have chosen both ways, and the choice has not always been a good one. I have hurt many people by being too loyal (loyal to the point where I could not see the truth of the situation), and I have hurt people because I bailed when I should not have (out of fear of the former happening again). There is also the natural expectation on the part of the loyal person to receive the same sort of loyalty in return, which does not often happen - that's another set of problems in its own right, and forces one to grow and mature so that loyalty may be given because it's right and because the object of that loyalty is loved, rather than because of an expectation of reciprocity. Anything can be done to a fault - specifically when that thing is not balanced by maturity in other areas and self-conscious examination of circumstances, self, people, and costs. -Lokmer Posted by: brick Mar 17 2004, 07:32 AM QUOTE (reach @ Mar 15 2004, 11:13 AM) brick- Semper fidelis I'm not sure there is such a thing as being "loyal to a fault." I'll have to dismantle that cliché and give it some further thought. What do you think? -reach Semper Fidelis is the Marine Corps motto, as well you know. My regiment's motto is "Advance" which is derived from and shared with the city of its origin; Ottawa. Its a very appropriate motto for a light infantry company, don't you think! Back to the topic on hand, loyal to a fault. I never saw this as an insult or even possessing a negative connitation. I'm proud of my innate fidelity and although it can and has brought trying times, c'est la vie. I wouldn't change it for the world! lokmer, Well said! I agree wholeheartedly in that loyalty must be tempered by realism and maturity. Knowing when to self -examine is the trick of it. And yes, reciprocity or lack thereof can be a bitch to navigate! Posted by: toecutter Mar 17 2004, 11:36 AM QUOTE (brick @ Mar 15 2004, 10:51 AM) As an atheist I have no use for faith. Do want you want with that one, its all yours. Love and hope however are principles I have every intention of honoring to my fullest ability. For myself, I think my third-of-choice would be 'fidelity' because (if you knew me personally, you'd agree) I'm very much that kind of person: loyal (to a fault, I've been told). Thanks for sharing, I just wanted to mention that you must have faith. i mean, you're sitting on a chair right now, right? did you build the chair? and even if you did, do you know that it's going to support you? no, you don't. everything requires a little bit of faith. you have faith in whoever built the chair, in the materials used, and that it's not going to give out under your weight. It's different from christian faith, but I think they're similar in certain ways. for example, i trusted my dad's judgement when he bought the chair. when I looked at it, i determined that it was sturdy enough to support my weight. there, i have faith in my dad's judgement, and my own eyesight. some people, more skeptical people, would have run the chair through a series of tests untill they had proven logically to themselves that it would support them. I did not have to. Faith in god is a bit different for me. some people, like my dad, are willing to have faith based off of less information. I am not. I have to run it through tests. This basically a very verbose way of saying, we all have faith, some have less and some have more. we all have it. Posted by: brick Mar 17 2004, 11:49 AM QUOTE (toecutter @ Mar 17 2004, 11:36 AM) QUOTE (brick @ Mar 15 2004, 10:51 AM) As an atheist I have no use for faith. Do want you want with that one, its all yours. Love and hope however are principles I have every intention of honoring to my fullest ability. For myself, I think my third-of-choice would be 'fidelity' because (if you knew me personally, you'd agree) I'm very much that kind of person: loyal (to a fault, I've been told). Thanks for sharing, I just wanted to mention that you must have faith. i mean, you're sitting on a chair right now, right? did you build the chair? and even if you did, do you know that it's going to support you? no, you don't. everything requires a little bit of faith. you have faith in whoever built the chair, in the materials used, and that it's not going to give out under your weight. It's different from christian faith, but I think they're similar in certain ways. for example, i trusted my dad's judgement when he bought the chair. when I looked at it, i determined that it was sturdy enough to support my weight. there, i have faith in my dad's judgement, and my own eyesight. some people, more skeptical people, would have run the chair through a series of tests untill they had proven logically to themselves that it would support them. I did not have to. Faith in god is a bit different for me. some people, like my dad, are willing to have faith based off of less information. I am not. I have to run it through tests. This basically a very verbose way of saying, we all have faith, some have less and some have more. we all have it. I see where you're going with this but I have to intercede. I didn't have faith that the chair would support me, I presumed it would based on previous experience, no faith required. When I went parachuting for the first time at the tender age of 16 I was incredibly nervous about the chute opening up nicely for me (you see, it didn't for a girl I knew just a week earlier, but that is another story) but I put my trust in those who packed the chute for me and trained like to to handle the situation if it didn't. Again, no faith. I want to state this again; I have no 'faith', I believe in nothing that I can't validate for myself, everything else I accept to varying degrees, depending on my previous experience with the source of the information. I've been without faith for about 27 years. I don't have any use for accepting or believing in things that I can't validate. PS. careful when you say things like "You must have faith." Posted by: toecutter Mar 17 2004, 12:02 PM I think this is just semantics. we're using the words faith and trust interchangably. I may very well be wrong, but I think that we're in agreement here. Posted by: brick Mar 17 2004, 12:33 PM QUOTE (toecutter @ Mar 17 2004, 12:02 PM) I think this is just semantics. we're using the words faith and trust interchangably. I may very well be wrong, but I think that we're in agreement here. Almost, except that in my case my trust is based on previous experience in the first person. This cannot be said of faith in the divine. These terms can be construed as synonymous but that is not accurate as I have demonstrated. Its a small thing really, but one worth pointing out as faith has implications that trust does not. Posted by: chefranden Mar 17 2004, 02:24 PM Brick, My regiment's (1st of the 7th Calvary) motto was Garry Owen which I always presumed was some Irish hero. Turns out that it is bastardized Gaelic that means "Owen's Garden". We charged into battle shouting "Owen's Garden". Watch out for the onions. chef Posted by: Reach Mar 17 2004, 02:48 PM QUOTE (toecutter @ Mar 17 2004, 03:02 PM) I think this is just semantics. we're using the words faith and trust interchangably. I may very well be wrong, but I think that we're in agreement here. I think faith and trust are close but not completely interchangeable. It is interesting to note that if you look in a Strong's Concordance you'll find that "trust" is the word most often used in the OT and "faith" is the one found in the NT. The difference was a bit of a surprise for me when I noticed it one day. .......... The Chef would think of onions. Posted by: toecutter Mar 17 2004, 11:29 PM no no no, I meant that we were using the words interchangably, not that the words themselves were interchangable. Like I said, we were pretty much in agreement. and like I said, faith in the divine is a different thing. that's why i'm testing mine. Posted by: brick Mar 18 2004, 08:20 AM QUOTE (chefranden @ Mar 17 2004, 02:24 PM) Brick, My regiment's (1st of the 7th Calvary) motto was Garry Owen which I always presumed was some Irish hero. Turns out that it is bastardized Gaelic that means "Owen's Garden". We charged into battle shouting "Owen's Garden". Watch out for the onions. chef That's too funny! Not exactly like shouting "Remember the Alamo" is it? My unit has a Scottish Highland tradition so our dress uniform includes a kilt in Cameron of Erracht tartan, our regimental march; 'March of the Cameron Men' of course. For inspiration, we bring a piper on forced marches and the like. Nothing better for moral than having a piper along! Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 25 2004, 04:21 PM Ok, I'm back and ready to rock. Hey Z, QUOTE 1 Corinthians 13 is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. I had it read during my wedding ceremony. If only more Christians took it to heart... I agree with you completely. *************************************************** Cerise, thank you for sharing that poem. It spoke truth about so much of the world and what's going on in it. *************************************************** Hi BillJ, You said: QUOTE I understand what you are trying to communicate but it is difficult to use an analogy to refer to faith in the Bible when it is nothing more than faith in its words. Hmmm...I think I know what you're saying, but I'm not quite sure. Care to crystallize it for me? Can you elaborate on this more? I just want to understand more clearly so that I can answer it accordingly. I do not wish to add assumptions to your statement. QUOTE I would have to say that there is less faith involved in buying a lottery ticket than there is in believing in the Bible. We know from experience that if you get the matching numbers they are legally required to pay you the money. We also can use math to find out the chances we have at winning. Interesting take. I guess it depends on what a person's requirements are in order to substantiate the appropriate amount of faith it takes for them to believe. For you, winning the lottery meets more of your belief requirements, which enables a smaller amount of faith, therefore it's easier to believe - or put your "faith" in. Conversely, the Bible doesn't meet your personal requirements in order to substantiate a belief in it. For me, I think the Bible proves to be a reliable source in which to understand God - It meets my personal "requirements" for me to put faith into believing its veracity. I would rather put my faith in believing there is a God, than resting it in the hope that I would win the lottery. Again, I suppose it depends on the person. *************************************************** Hey Chef, long time... QUOTE Nice sermon. I almost wish it were true at least for your sake. (sigh) Thanks for the compliment, I think It has been true in my life, that's the point I guess. QUOTE Love:XianGod doesn't live up to this. If you want to insist that his love is only for the chosen, you must admit that he didn't have any patience with Israel. Actually, I think God showed TONS of patience with Israel! They continually were screwing things up, and warranted His anger on many occasions. Granted, some pretty terrible things happened to the Israelites, but overall I believe we see a representation of a very merciful and patient God. Just my take. QUOTE Lot's wife was hardly an example of patient love. Job? Ya right! The Amalekites? Balls, he wasn't even patient with the animals. He wasn't even patient with his chosen King, Saul. When Saul balked at finishing the job, did XianGod take him aside and say, "Now look Saul it is really important that you rip the guts out of these babies. Now, please go try it again. Later when you are suffering from bouts of PTSD I will have Sam bring this nice young shepard boy to sing for you and you will feel better for awhile. There now, that's a good King get back to work." No way! It was, "Hell, I'm taking the kingdom away from this whimp. I'm going to give it to a real terrorist." I don't see it as a matter of incompetence. It was a matter of obedience. I don't like that stuff any more than you do Chef. I do believe there are always reasons for everything God does and did in the OT, even though I don't like them and can't understand them. I know that doesn't provide an answer, but I don't think you were fishing for one anyway. Am I wrong in saying that? QUOTE Hope The title of your song should be more like “It Might be Today: but probably not”. If I had seen the woman, I would have wept for her delusion, and yours. Clever Chef. That's my new name for you. You're right though, it wasn't that day, and it's probably not today either (since it's nearly over). QUOTE Faith: I think that you must have forgotten that many here have lived with this faith and know that it is with out substance. I didn't forget that many here have lived with this faith. "Without substance"? Hmmmm.... QUOTE Now imagine this: I don't buy any lottery tickets, because I know that the house wins. That is there is nothing in it for me. Ah! So you choose to be without faith altogether. No? QUOTE Two years ago Sweetie and I went to Los Vegas. (If you haven't been there save your money. It is just a gigantic mall with slot machines and lots whores, and no place to sit except in front of a slot machine.) LOL - I agree! QUOTE Anyway since we were there we decided to let the house have a buck so we could see the pretty wheels go around, rest our feet, and be able to say we did it. So we got twenty nickles and started playing. Well don't you know it we got carried away and ended up loosing $1.25. Damn they are tricky with their promises. Reminds me of religion in that way. I put in 10%+ of my puny minister's salary and 100% of myself in the slot for years. I had faith, lots of it. Nevertheless, the house got it all, just like Vegas got the whole $1.25. Your illustration is apt. Interesting metaphor Chef. I'm glad my faith hasn't left me as empty-handed. Everytime I put my 10% into the "slot", the house pays out. *************************************************** Hi Reach, Am I a teacher? Yes and no. I don't teach professionally, but I lead a small group Bible study. Nonetheless, thanks so much for the compliment. *************************************************** Hi Baby Eater, QUOTE Listening to radiohead right now, I can only think of 3 things much too present in the world: delusion, despair and hatred. All those feelings you have are sweet... yet I am pissed. You wouldn't understand, anyways. Yes, they ARE much too present in the world. I'm sorry you're pissed...I've been there too. It sucks. It usually feeds into delusion, despair, and hatred. I hope more of the good things in life will come your way my friend. *************************************************** Hi Outsider, You asked: QUOTE Is this love unconditional? How can it be when one is faced with the choice of reward or punishment? Yes, this love is unconditional. The choice we make doesn't change the love God has for us, it just hinders us from experiencing it. *************************************************** Sanguine, Would an appropriate identifier for your name be "red" or "happy"? Just wondering. QUOTE Quite an emotional outburst there. It's just a shame that they do not exist as you describe them. I would argue that the DO exist, which is exactly why I am able to write about them in detail. They have been empirically evident in my personal life, and in the lives of others I know. My friend Reach (on this site) is just one example. *************************************************** Hi Skankboy, You said: QUOTE By the first definition faith is a relationship between an individual (or group of individuals) and an authority figure. Thus I don't see how you can say it's being based on anything "evident" as that requires "evidence" to back it up. The evidence is a completely other topic. For an immediate answer, one evidence of this faith is the manifestation of it within the lives of believers, and how it becomes a channel in which hope and love can be seen. As Moorezw said earlier, if more Christians would live their lives reflecting what God defines as true love, it would be evidently clear that there is something more to the faith they proclaim to have. That, without this faith, their lives would be completely different. And with it, the difference has been made, for the better. QUOTE The reason why many here would say that is the opposite of intelligence is because of the "soley and implicitly on his authority part." We don't believe (or disbelieve) because someone else told us to. We ask for facts to back up assertions and don't rely soley on the authority of the messanger (that's called good science, by the way). I understand this. I guess I would have to ask how you came to the conclusive decision in believing the "facts" you were given. By what messenger did you receive the "facts" that are contrary to the "faith"? Everybody gets there facts somewhere. I chose to believe one Messenger, many choose to believe another. QUOTE If I know the outcome before it happens, it's not hope, its certainty. Exactly right. You just reiterated my point. I don't play the lottery either, but your reason is better than mine! *************************************************** Hi Channelcat, Nice song. So, how does our choice directly reflect Jesus' love for us? How do the two correlate? Why do you (and others) place the responsibility of our decision on Jesus? I'm not being difficult, I'm curious of the reasoning behind it. Care to answer? Thanks in advance. *************************************************** And now...my friend Lokmer! Long time no talk... And I quote: QUOTE Your exegesis (and most Evangelical exegesis) of Heb. 11:1 is a bit wonky. Using that passage to point to the validity of faith is like singing "You ask me how I know he lives? He lives within my heart." Oh but Lokmer, I didn't use that verse to point to the validity of faith, but to its definitive nature according to the believer. I don't have to use a verse from the Bible to prove the validity of faith - Faith is already valid. I didn't use the verse to argue faith, I used it to expound on the understanding of it. Even so, singing (or stating) that "I know He lives because He lives within my heart" isn't wonky either. Millions of Christians will be martyred this year because of that very statement. I know what you're concluding, and I understand your contention. I'm only saying that there is something more to it than just a catchy (or cheesey) phrase. Something that demands a response from those that believe. Something that possesses the power to heal broken lives, fogive sins, save lost souls, bring hope in the midst of despair, light in the midst of darkness, and life in the midst of death. I think it warrants a bit more respect than what you've given it here. Just my opinion. There are countless others that would request the same. You continue: QUOTE Hebrews is not saying "what we believe in is true." It is saying "The fact that we believe is proof that it is true." The ancient church - particularly the Pauline faction - viewed faith as a gift from God that evidenced them as the elect. Hebrews is asserting that belief=proof, which is ridiculous on the face of it. Understood. Faith was looked at as a gift to those that believe. Believe, and receive faith. So, you're saying (from what you said next) that there was no way of determining whether what they believed in was true or myth, right? They believed, then had faith, but it obviously can't count for anything. Am I understanding this correctly? You mentioned some interesting opinions about the various people Hebrews mentions. Your conclusions about Noah, Enoch, Able, etc. I'm interested to know more about who you learned that from. Can you provide some reading references or commentaries on this? Thanks in advance. *************************************************** Hi Brick, You said: QUOTE As an atheist I have no use for faith. Do want you want with that one, its all yours. Ok. I think Toecutter touched on this a bit later, but doesn't it require some form of faith NOT to believe? I know you already answered Toecutter with some of this, and maybe I can gather together your answer by reading your responses to him. QUOTE Love and hope however are principles I have every intention of honoring to my fullest ability. For myself, I think my third-of-choice would be 'fidelity' because (if you knew me personally, you'd agree) I'm very much that kind of person: loyal (to a fault, I've been told). Fidelity huh? That's another great quality to have and practice. Thank you for sharing back! Whew! Looking forward to more, thanks again to all of you for your patience. =Veritas= Posted by: Lokmer Mar 26 2004, 12:36 AM QUOTE (Veritas) Oh but Lokmer, I didn't use that verse to point to the validity of faith, but to its definitive nature according to the believer. I don't have to use a verse from the Bible to prove the validity of faith - Faith is already valid. I didn't use the verse to argue faith, I used it to expound on the understanding of it. Ah, but it was in support of pointing out the validity of faith as a paradigm of understanding: QUOTE (Veritas) To the believer, faith is the very essence of knowledge - not its counterpart. Our faith is based on the knowledge of what is evident, rather than the unknown. Our faith is the evidence, of an "unseen" God. I was pointing out that by using that verse as definition you effectively remove any epistemological footing faith has. QUOTE (Veritas) Even so, singing (or stating) that "I know He lives because He lives within my heart" isn't wonky either. Millions of Christians will be martyred this year because of that very statement. Not quite. Millions of Christians will be martyred this year because they refuse to denounce something they truly believe in. There's a vast difference. Some of them, of course, believe that Jesus lives in their hearts or has a "personal relationship" with them. Many others (most of them), including the innumerable Coptics, Orthodox, Catholic, and liturgical protestants, merely believe they are being true to God (and, incidentally, defending their homelands from centuries-long wars, as the Catholics and Orthodox in Kosovo are doing/have done, as well as the Presbyterians and Catholics feuding in Ireland). Your ascription of that simplistic creed as a universal Christian attitude is quite mistaken. QUOTE (Veritas) I know what you're concluding, and I understand your contention. I'm only saying that there is something more to it than just a catchy (or cheesey) phrase. Something that demands a response from those that believe. Not to be gauche, but any belief demands a response from people. I know (personally) people who believe that the earth is conscious and that the trees have spirits. They have transformed their lives around this belief. Is it a baseless, silly belief? Absolutely! But it means something to them, and it transforms them. That illustrates the power of faith, certianly. It also illustrates that it is (and I'll say it again) absolutely worthless as an epistemological tool. Faith/belief has value in making the world habitable for people, because the world is large, frightening, and generally incomprehensible. Everyone has some belief or another - some measure of faith that they have placed in something beyond what it merits (I certainly do, and have). There's a differenence between acknowledging the necessary paradigm and holding it up as a virtue. It's what one does with their faith (do you question it or hold it blindly? Do you use it as a source of inspiration for kindness and mercy, or do you use it as a wedge to destroy cultures or for invincibility as you fly a plane into a building?) that matters. QUOTE Something that possesses the power to heal broken lives, fogive sins, save lost souls, bring hope in the midst of despair, light in the midst of darkness, and life in the midst of death. True. And like any potent idea, it posesses the power to rend, destroy, ruin, maim, and kill. Both of these powers are used in this world - the second is used with abandon, even now (the Catholic Church, for example, is still burning witches in Bulgaria [ref= Heretics by William Sumner Davis], and then there's the Muslim world - 'nuff said). Atomic fusion posesses the power to build civilizations, to reduce pollution, and raise the standard of living. It also has the power to (quite literally) destroy the world. We are stuck with it - it is up to us to approach it with great caution and self-examination. Just like faith. QUOTE (Veritas) I think it warrants a bit more respect than what you've given it here. Just my opinion. There are countless others that would request the same. Faith is a tool that is useful for many things. The acquisition, examination, refinement, and enrichment of knowledge is not one of those things. QUOTE (Veritas) Understood. Faith was looked at as a gift to those that believe. Believe, and receive faith. So, you're saying (from what you said next) that there was no way of determining whether what they believed in was true or myth, right? They believed, then had faith, but it obviously can't count for anything. Am I understanding this correctly? Correct. It can't count for anything in the sense that you wish it to count. It can certainly lend meaning to a life, but it does not lend veracity to an idea. QUOTE (Veritas) You mentioned some interesting opinions about the various people Hebrews mentions. Your conclusions about Noah, Enoch, Able, etc. I'm interested to know more about who you learned that from. Can you provide some reading references or commentaries on this? Thanks in advance. For those of you joining this thread late, this is what he's referring to: QUOTE (me) But we now know that one of those people did not do what is spoken of him and probably did not exist (Noah), that Enoch was a borrowed sun God, that Able's story is another myth with no discernable history or veracity. For the writer of Hebrews, these things were part of the cultural fabric - s/he had no way of discerning between what was false and what was true other than gut reaction. And the things the author offers us as corroborative examples bring into serious question his/her ability to distinguish fact from fantasy. Oh, let's see. Noah. Several layers here. 1) The Genesis flood never happened. That is beyond dispute, even among the majority of scientists who are Christians. Dr. Hugh Ross (A Christian apologist and webmaster or www.reasonstobelieve.com) makes this point quite decisively in his book "The Genesis Question." 2) The story of Noah is copied from The Gilgamesh Epic which is in turn copied from Sumerian Myth. For a non-exhaustive list of parallels between four of the more popular ancient flood myths, see http://www.flood-myth.com/parallels.htm 3) Only Near-eastern peoples, Southern Chinese, Southern Indians, and plains natives from the Americas have this myth. In other words - peoples who lived on flood plains or near them. The Chinese flood myth has the Chinese defeating the flood by building an irrigation system. 4) See "The Masks of God: Occidental Mythology" by Joseph Smith (I believe it's vol 3 in the Masks of God series) for an exhaustive analysis of flood mythology. Enoch the sun God: Enoch, the 7th descendant of Adam, lived for 365 years and then did not die, but was taken into heaven. (Genesis 5:23) There is no further detail about Enoch except that he was the father of Methuselah and the son of Jared. The solar week is 7 days. The sun moves through the Zodiac for 365 days (the solar year). Enoch is taken into heaven and lives forever, as does the sun. There is nothing in the story except for sun-god archetypes. But of course, the author of Hebrews did not get his/her information on Enoch only (or primarily) from Genesis, but from the 2 books of Enoch, which were considered so authoritative in the early church that they are quoted and alluded to throughout the New Testament (having been dictated by Enoch, who was still alive and came down to Earth for 30 days to impart the secrets of the universe to the faithful in Israel). The apocryphal books of Enoch are astrological apocalypses even moreso than The Apocalypse of John (more commonly known as Revelation). References: http://32.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EN/ENOCH.htm Joseph Smith, "Occidental Mythology", http://33.1911encyclopedia.org/E/EN/ENOCH_BOOK_OF.htm, Robert Price "Deconstructing Jesus" As for Able, the story of Cain and Able is another ancient astrological myth, other iterations of which are the story of Romulus and Remus (the brothers who founded Rome), of Pollux and Castor (symbolized by the constellation Gemini in the Zodiac), Amen-Ra and Set, and the original (probably - at least it's the oldest version we have) Enlil and Enki. (In fact, every ancient civilization in the Near East had a mythic pair of progenitors who were usually brothers, one good and one evil, where one murdered the other out of jealousy, who were the fathers/parents of the civilization). The story for all of them is quite similar - to the point where the bad brother becomes the inventor of musical instruments and a founder of civilizations. Even ignoring all that, the portrayal of Cain and Able as the two first children of Adam and Eve, themselves completely mythical and archetypal, is enough to chalk the story up as complete myth. Sources: "The Golden Bough" by Sir James Frazer, "Deconstructing Jesus" by Robert Price, "Occidental Mythology" and "The Hero's Journey" and "Creative Mythology (Masks of God vol 4)" by Joseph Campbell. QUOTE (me) Now, for the person who wrote Hebrews, this is all well and good - s/he lived in a time where there was no difference between history and myth/legend outside of the Roman and Greek centers of learning far from the areas that Hebrew Christians frequented. References for this (a couple quick ones) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/history/index.shtml Also, it would do you well to read the Pseudographia/Apocrypha from your own religion, as well as the Oddessy (and ancient historians like Tacitus who considered Homer's characters and other mythic figures like Romulus and Remus to be historical), and generally study up on the period, as well as any review of the development of historiography and the historical-critical method. -Lokmer Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 26 2004, 09:21 AM Great stuff Lokmer, I'll be back later today. I have to call my Theology and Apologetics Professor so that I can school you on the ways of knowledge. J/K! Give me some time to reply, you always give me so much to chew on. Thanks! =Veritas= Posted by: =Veritas= Mar 26 2004, 03:24 PM Ok Lokmer, here ya go... You said: QUOTE (Lokmer) I was pointing out that by using that verse as definition you effectively remove any epistemological footing faith has. I have a clearer understanding of what you're saying here. Thanks. Maybe it wasn't the right verse to use? I still believe that the Christian faith can serve to provide the very essence of our knowledge. I'll have to think more about how to illustrate it. For starters, my faith enables me to understand some things about life that I would have not understood otherwise. My faith teaches me things, it encourages me to want to learn more. There is way more to this, but I'm just scratching the surface. QUOTE (Lokmer) Not quite. Millions of Christians will be martyred this year because they refuse to denounce something they truly believe in. There's a vast difference. Some of them, of course, believe that Jesus lives in their hearts or has a "personal relationshi |