| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Open Forums for ExChristian.Net > Old Board > The Essence of Faith |
| Posted by: sexkitten Oct 15 2004, 11:38 AM |
| Printable Version of Topic Click here to view this topic in its original format ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > The Essence Of Faith Posted by: PseudoGod May 6 2004, 08:00 AM The dictionary gives several definitions of the word "faith". A few of these definitions: 1. Confident belief in the truth of a person, idea or thing 2. Belief that does rest on logical proof 3. Loyalty to a person or thing 4. Secure belief in God and trust in his will The Bible pretty much implies that "faith" is something that god considers a virture, so much so that eternal heavenly rewards await those who incorporate it's use in almost every aspect of their life. However, it seems that logically, definitions 1, 3 and 4 are all dependant on definition 2 before they can be realized, at least with regard to Christianity. It is difficult to have trust, loyalty or confidence in a "thing" if that thing cannot first be proved existent, or alternatively taking the definition number 2 leap of faith. So my question is this: Why do Christians think the god of the Bible finds virtue in belief that does not rest on logical proof? How is any faith virtuous? I might not have direct evidence that black holes exist and take it on faith that scientists are telling me the truth, but how is that a virture? Should I be rewarded for taking it on faith that black holes really exist? Posted by: Cerise May 6 2004, 08:39 AM Well it's like my grandmother used to tell me: Seek GOD with all your heart...not all your brain. I think if Xtian God really wanted followers for any other purpose besides blind worship, then there would be no punishment for unbelievers. The only reason I can think of a Deity wanted a fear-based reaction and thus a fear-based conversion, would be if it wanted the brains turned off and the mindless worshipping turned on. For all those who think God=Love, well if God is who He says He is in the Bible (which seems unlikely to me) that isn't love anymore then the guy who beats his wife and then brings her flowers is love. Just my opinion. Posted by: SOIL May 6 2004, 09:00 AM I personally (as a Christian) would not start out a thread that talks about "The Essence of Faith" with a definition of the word from a modern-day dictionary. Here are a couple of definitions from other sources - and later I will put some in here from the Bible - before I start with my own personal comments. ....... Below (sorry for the length - but I think folks even here will find this interesting) is the definition for the word "FAITH" as it appears in the 1828 edition of American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster. QUOTE Faith FAITH, n. [L. fides, fido, to trust; Gr. to persuade, to draw towards any thing, to conciliate; to believe, to obey. In the Greek Lexicon of Hederic it is said, the primitive signification of the verb is to bind and draw or lead, as signifies a rope or cable.But this remark is a little incorrect. The sense of the verb, from which that of rope and binding is derived, is to strain, to draw, and thus to bind or make fast. A rope or cable is that which makes fast. Heb.] 1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates. 2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind. 3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar. 4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation. Being justified by faith. Rom 5. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Heb 11. For we walk by faith, and not by sight. 2 Cor 5. With the heart man believeth to righteousness. Rom 10. The faith of the gospel is that emotion of the mind, which is called trust or confidence, exercised towards the moral character of God, and particularly of the Savior. Faith is an affectionate practical confidence in the testimony of God. Faith is a firm, cordial belief in the veracity of God, in all the declarations of his word; or a full and affectionate confidence in the certainty of those things which God has declared, and because he has declared them. 5. The object of belief; a doctrine or system of doctrines believed; a system of revealed truths received by christians. They heard only, that he who persecuted us in times past, now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed. Gal 1. 6. The promises of God, or his truth and faithfulness. shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? Rom 3. 7. An open profession of gospel truth. Your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. Rom 1. 8. A persuasion or belief of the lawfulness of things indifferent. Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Rom 14. 9.Faithfulness; fidelity; a strict adherence to duty and fulfillment of promises. Her failing, while her faith to me remains, I would conceal. Children in whom is no faith. Deu 32. 10. Word or honor pledged; promise given; fidelity. He violated his plighted faith. For you alone I broke my faith with injured Palamon. 11. Sincerity; honesty; veracity; faithfulness. We ought in good faith, to fulfill all our engagements. 12. Credibility or truth. Unusual.] The faith of the foregoing narrative. From Martin Luther's Preface to Romans : the few paragraphs below I have copied from: http://www.gospelcom.net/eword/comments/romans/luther/romansintro.htm QUOTE ... Faith is not that human illusion and dream that some people think it is. When they hear and talk a lot about faith and yet see that no moral improvement and no good works result from it, they fall into error and say, "Faith is not enough. You must do works if you want to be virtuous and get to heaven." The result is that, when they hear the Gospel, they stumble and make for themselves with their own powers a concept in their hearts which says, "I believe." This concept they hold to be true faith. But since it is a human fabrication and thought and not an experience of the heart, it accomplishes nothing, and there follows no improvement. Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn't ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn't do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn't know what faith or good works are. Even so, he chatters on with a great many words about faith and good works. Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Through faith, a person will do good to everyone without coercion, willingly and happily; he will serve everyone, suffer everything for the love and praise of God, who has shown him such grace. It is as impossible to separate works from faith as burning and shining from fire. Therefore be on guard against your own false ideas and against the chatterers who think they are clever enough to make judgements about faith and good works but who are in reality the biggest fools. Ask God to work faith in you; otherwise you will remain eternally without faith, no matter what you try to do or fabricate. Now justice is just such a faith. It is called God's justice or that justice which is valid in God's sight, because it is God who gives it and reckons it as justice for the sake of Christ our Mediator. It influences a person to give to everyone what he owes him. Through faith a person becomes sinless and eager for God's commands. Thus he gives God the honor due him and pays him what he owes him. He serves people willingly with the means available to him. In this way he pays everyone his due. Neither nature nor free will nor our own powers can bring about such a justice, for even as no one can give himself faith, so too he cannot remove unbelief. How can he then take away even the smallest sin? Therefore everything which takes place outside faith or in unbelief is lie, hypocrisy and sin (Romans 14), no matter how smoothly it may seem to go. ... -Dennis Posted by: Cerise May 6 2004, 09:09 AM QUOTE Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Strange, isn't it? How I have met so few Christians who have this. And yet they claim to be more filled with the "Holy Spirit" then an unbeliever like myself. Strange... Posted by: SOIL May 6 2004, 09:37 AM QUOTE (Cerise @ May 6 2004, 09:09 AM) QUOTE Faith is a living, unshakeable confidence in God's grace; it is so certain, that someone would die a thousand times for it. This kind of trust in and knowledge of God's grace makes a person joyful, confident, and happy with regard to God and all creatures. This is what the Holy Spirit does by faith. Strange, isn't it? How I have met so few Christians who have this. And yet they claim to be more filled with the "Holy Spirit" then an unbeliever like myself. Strange... Yes, Cerise I understand what you are saying - maybe that is why I am willing to read so much of what I find here. I have seen "this" in my dad - and a few other Christians though - (however, I haven't heard them talking about how they are "filled with the Spirit"). -Dennis Posted by: Rameus May 6 2004, 09:46 AM SOIL, I have no problem with people who have faith that there is a God, or that there is an afterlife. I do however have a problem with people who try to convince the world that their form of worship is the only "true" way. If these people cannot muster any serious evidence for their claims, then I am going to continue regarding their blind faith with derision. My new bumper sticker that just arrived: QUOTE Militant Agnostic: I don't know and you don't either. Rameus Posted by: PseudoGod May 6 2004, 10:16 AM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 09:00 AM) I personally (as a Christian) would not start out a thread that talks about "The Essence of Faith" with a definition of the word from a modern-day dictionary. Since I don't have time to respond to your entire post right now I will at least respond to this. Since a non-Christian started this thread, why should I not use a modern-day dictionary for my definitions? Somehow Websters decided that one aspect of "faith" means "belief that does not rest on logical proof". Since your Bible-centric definitions of faith don't address that particular aspect of faith, then what word would you use to describe "belief that does not rest on logical proof"? Posted by: SOIL May 6 2004, 10:28 AM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ May 6 2004, 10:16 AM) ... Since your Bible-centric definitions of faith don't address that particular aspect of faith, then what word would you use to describe "belief that does not rest on logical proof"? Well, I don't know if I would try to encapsulate that thought into a single word. I kind of like it the way you just said it "belief that does not rest on logical proof". Also, it may have looked like I was complaining about how you started this thread. I didn't mean for my post to sound that way (I hurried it as I was late for lunch). I think I just wanted to show that there are other ways to define the type of faith which the Bible encourages so much. Your question is a good one though and I should try to answer it directly. I do plan to do that - but not at this time. (I'm sorry - but I have been really bummed out today - by the news about what some of our fellow Americans have apparently been doing to the Iraqi prisoners.) Basically, I am just having a hard time concentrating on important things just now. I do like some of what Martin Luther said about the word that was translated from German into either of the English words "Faith" or "Believe". And that (translation from one language to another) is something that I think can have a very big impact on a lot of Biblical conceps (Faith included). -Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 6 2004, 10:52 AM I think part of the problem christians and ex-christians have when discussing faith is that we do have different definitions (or maybe justifications). When I (as an exchristian) think about faith, I'd soften the "belief that does not rest on logical proof", to maybe say "belief that is not supported by evidence or is contradicted by evidence". I think proof is an unobtainable target for many beliefs, so you have to look at quantity and quality of evidence. I'm putting words in their mouths (so correct me if I'm wrong Dennis or other christians), but I think christians think faith is more along the lines of "beliefs not supported by earthly evidence, but internally supported or validated by god". In other words, there is a component of god personally letting the individual know that the belief is valid or even giving them the belief. The mechanism by which this occurs is also not provable by earthly means. If this is true, it helps explain why there is an endless debate on faith and why there is rarely a meeting of the minds. Dennis, how does this fit with your definition of faith? Posted by: SOIL May 6 2004, 01:21 PM Tex, I appreciate your post. Actually I like what each person has said in this thread! I think maybe the way that the word faith is defined in the more modern dictionaries (and is actually used in our society today) is putting a stress on the area of "adequate evidence" - that is not actually where the focal point for this word actually should be - based on how I think it is used in the Bible anyway. I am thinking here about how the King James Translation of the Bible has effected the way that language in America has developed over our nation's short time in history. Even now, when the Bible is not so prominent - I think words like "faith" are still very much effected by how they are perceived to be used in the Bible (many people just kind of have a vague memory like something seen through their rear-view mirror so to speak), about what they felt when reading a word like 'faith'. As far as the definition that I like - the paragraph which Cerise picked out of the stuff I quoted from Martin Luther is a good place to start. I think that strikes closer to the Essence of Faith as I am currently feeling it anyway - and also, I think that is an important component of how the word is used through much of the English translation of New Testament. I have been looking (in just the last few minutes) through the gospel of Matthew - specifically chapters 6 through 9 - and I have been reading a few of the surrounding verses in the immediate proximity of each time the word "faith" appears (in the English Standard Version). I haven't noticed so much an overt emphasis on the concept of missing tangible evidence - (though I do think I remember seeing that in Hebrews chapter 11). Rather, I see several instances where Jesus seems really happy to see that people (like the centurion for instance) just seem to take him at his word and assume that God really wants to help them (like in the quote from Martin Luther). For instance: QUOTE Matthew 6:28-30 (ESV) And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, [29] yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. [30] But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? QUOTE Matthew 8:5-10 (ESV) When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, [6] "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." [7] And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." [8] But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. [9] For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. And I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes, and to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it." [10] When Jesus heard this, he marveled and said to those who followed him, "Truly, I tell you, with no one in Israel have I found such faith. QUOTE Matthew 8:24-26 (ESV) And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. [25] And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." [26] And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. (well - maybe there is a lack of evidence pretty overtly there!) QUOTE Matthew 9:27-30 (ESV) And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." [28] When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." [29] Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." [30] And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." I am running out of time just now - but if you check out even just those 3 chapters you will notice there are several other places which also site "for instances" (but I didn't take up room here to quote each of them). Overall Tex, I think I pretty much agree with what you said - but I need to think more about it (and I will probably read through your post a couple more times) because I don't think it is exactly where I am coming from. For now I will just say - like I think I may have mentioned earlier somewhere on this site : Part of what faith means to me - is that God wants us to just simply give him the benefit of the doubt . I think he wants us to firmly believe that he actually desires our best interests - (like we do) and he is capable and actually will help us out - if we will just trust him and humble ourselves by admitting we desire and even need his help. I think he wants us to keep this trust even when immediate circumstances don't always suggest that our faith is rational. But faith (for me anyway) involves the assurance that in the final analysis, God will work things out - (factoring in that I am an eternal being - and it there is more to come even after my body has died). I think the counsel of the serpent in the garden of Eden was that God was really not completely desiring the best interests of Adam and Eve. I think their disobedience was basically saying that they didn't completely trust God. (Here, I can go with that definition number 1 from the 1828 Webster dictionary). I think Faith can mean trusting another person's intents. For me anyway - I have faith in Jesus. Tex, I just reread your post (yet again) - and this is very good I think: QUOTE ... In other words, there is a component of god personally letting the individual know that the belief is valid or even giving them the belief. The mechanism by which this occurs is also not provable by earthly means. ... (underlined emphasis mine) Yep, I think you have hit on a key part of the definition of faith there with that word "personally". I admit though - the whole concept of the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ" has been something that is very hard for me to understand - (I am constantly questioning the folks at my church about what exactly it really means). Maybe that " unshakeable confidence in God's grace" phrase from Martin Luther holds a good clue? -Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 6 2004, 01:49 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 04:21 PM) Part of what faith means to me - is that God wants us to just simply give him the benefit of the doubt . I think he wants us to firmly believe that he actually desires our best interests - (like we do) and he is capable and actually will help us out - if we will just trust him and humble ourselves by admitting we desire and even need his help. I think he wants us to keep this trust even when immediate circumstances don't always suggest that our faith is rational. Of course, a BIG issue is that you have to accept that a god exists before you can have faith that it wants the things you mention. You have to have faith that a god exists before you can have faith in its motives. That's where I go back to evidence. Without evidence it is unreasonable to place your faith (or believe in) any god. It drives me a little crazy that theists of any type would insist that a god gave us reasoning based on evidence and our physical senses and then insists that we shouldn't use those to determine which god claims are true and which ones are false. Posted by: SOIL May 6 2004, 02:07 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 6 2004, 01:49 PM) ... It drives me a little crazy that theists of any type would insist that a god gave us reasoning based on evidence and our physical senses and then insists that we shouldn't use those to determine which god claims are true and which ones are false. Yeah, I think I can understand where you are coming from. Somehow though when I read scripture (and when I walk out in the country here where I live) - there just doesn't seem to be much doubt about God's existence. I can certainly understand other people who say they don't feel that same confidence however. That book by G.K. Chesterton which I have quoted from in other places called Orthodoxy (at least I think that is the one) mentions somewhere that reason needs to have certain unprovable foundational assumptions to build on - whichever basic worldview that a person holds? I need to go back and reread some of that stuff also - because I still don't understand exactly what he was saying (kind of like sometimes I have to read other people's posts 3 or 4 or 5 times before I really understand what they are saying as well). (gotta go mow some more grass now though - I live on approx 25 acres - and we have had a lot of rain recently - I can almost hear the grass growing!) -Dennis Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 6 2004, 03:02 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 05:07 PM) That book by G.K. Chesterton which I have quoted from in other places called Orthodoxy (at least I think that is the one) mentions somewhere that reason needs to have certain unprovable foundational assumptions to build on - whichever basic worldview that a person holds? I can understand that - otherwise you can end up doubting whether or not anything is real. This is one reason I rely on thinking and physical senses. IMHO there are some foundations that are self-evident. I know that thinking exists because I am thinking. I know that physical senses exist because I can sense things. Beyond that point, it seems like anything else is based on thinking and/or processing of senses. It's not self-evident to me that you exist - I only believe you exist because I can sense your presence through the words I read on my computer screen and can process those words with my thinking brain. Same goes for any gods that I'm told exist - they're not self-evident and I must process them using my thinking and physical sensing abilities. I know philosophers and theologians have debated this for centuries and I certainly doubt that I can provide any more insight, but self-evident reason and physical senses make sense to me as unprovable but valid foundations for a worldview. Posted by: TexasFreethinker May 6 2004, 03:06 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 05:07 PM) (gotta go mow some more grass now though - I live on approx 25 acres - and we have had a lot of rain recently - I can almost hear the grass growing!) And have fun with the grass! Posted by: PseudoGod May 6 2004, 10:22 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 02:07 PM) QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 6 2004, 01:49 PM) ... It drives me a little crazy that theists of any type would insist that a god gave us reasoning based on evidence and our physical senses and then insists that we shouldn't use those to determine which god claims are true and which ones are false. Yeah, I think I can understand where you are coming from. Somehow though when I read scripture (and when I walk out in the country here where I live) - there just doesn't seem to be much doubt about God's existence. Soil, I used the feel the same way. I would look at a beautiful sunset or be standing at the top of a peak in the sierras while skiing, looking at the mountains go on forever and ever, and be in total awe at the greatness of it all, knowing that god exists. When I now look back on those moments, what I realize is not that I "knew" god existed, but that I was dwarfed by something so exponentially greater than myself that I was humbled. And that greater "something" which I cannot explain is the mystery of life, that which cannot be known. That is what I called god. In other words, "God" was a term for what I don't know, not what I do know. And to be honest, I *still* feel that same sense of awe in life, even as a non-Christian. What I no longer do, because I cannot, is take leap after leap after leap of faith and attribute that sense of awe and humility to the Bible, then to the Christian God, then to Jesus, then to the holy spirit, etc, etc, etc. Nor can I attribute it to Allah or Vishnu or Apollo or Zeus or Mohummad or Brahma or any other god or prophet or savior known to man. To me, that is all tradition, delusions, myths, and the hopes and dreams of ancient primitive man. I honestly believe when all those men say they were "inspired" by "god" what they were inspired by was the mystery of life, and by the unknown, just the same way I am inspired when I look at the mountains. And the unknown, that we are inspired by, is what is known as "god". Posted by: Reality Amplifier May 6 2004, 10:31 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 09:00 AM) I personally (as a Christian) would not start out a thread that talks about "The Essence of Faith" with a definition of the word from a modern-day dictionary. Here are a couple of definitions from other sources Dennis, You’ve illustrated one of the reasons why it seems outlandish to me that the bible could be ever be considered to be the actual “Word of God”. The connotative meanings of words in language invariably begin to change and evolve over time. That’s why the connotative meaning of the word “faith” probably applies differently to skeptics than to you, and we speak the same language! To me, faith in the bible as the “Word of God” means ignoring the illogic, the discrepancies, the change of meaning in language over time, etc. It means placing trust in something that’s purportedly divine, which is unable to supply any empirical evidence or any authentication to that claim, other than itself. If God’s objective was to provide his “word” so that "all" would come to the knowledge of truth, His word should be easy to understand, and immutable over time. God would be working against his objectives to by allowing: 1)Deciding to use hearsay information in 2000+ year old, unverifiable stories that he purportedly inspired to be the most likely vehicle for his message to mankind. 2)Ignoring the evolution of the connotative meaning of words in language of time. Semantics. 3)The inevitable confusion created by the ambiguous language, allegories, metaphors, etc. 4)Numerous discrepancies 5)Varying accounts he supposedly gives concerning his nature. 6)Etc, etc… All these reasons seem counter-intuitive to the truth one would expect of God. You seem to be saying to ignore our normal sense of reason and doubt in the face of such hurdles. Just have faith that it is the truth anyways. In my mind, Truth on is a uniform thing. It is an apparent thing. Truth is an actual and genuine thing. Truth is a factual thing. I would expect nothing less than complete truth from the Word of God, yet the Bible falls dismayingly short in so many regards (for the reasons above and more), that my sense of reason leads me to question where is the truth in the bible? Consider for a moment the difficulties in knowing the real meaning through the ambiguous language, the allegories, metaphors, and historical references that are typically lost on the average person today. I believe that we would need historians, linguists, classicists, translators and archeologists that were cross-trained in practically all of those disciplines to stave off errors in translating the from the connotative meanings from the original languages not only into modern day English, but into English that is universal clear and understandable to all. The best scholars of ancient Greek today don’t know the language half as well as a farmer who lived and spoke the language 2000 years ago. Those skills don’t exist in the average “target audience” of the “Word of God, which again seems counter-intuitive to the bible as the vehicle of the word of God. How many bible studies and church sermons have you listened to where you've debated with your fellows on what you think God was trying to say in a particular scripture, or what his real meaning is in the topic at hand? How many Christian ministers out there preaching every Sunday are also historians, linguists, classicists, translators and archeologists? Why all the discussions? bible-studies, internal debating and equivocation? Because the truth in not apparent! Why is it that I’ve seen so many Christians struggle with "hidden-truths" in the scriptures, seeking understanding from amongst each other? Why would one have trouble seeking truth, unless there is a lack of plain truth? Because the truth in the Word of God is not readily apparent, perhaps? Thus, the need for faith. Posted by: SOIL May 7 2004, 06:03 AM Good points all, ( PG, Tex and RA ) I would very, very much like to sit here today and respond to each of you. However - I just learned of a pressing need for me to do some of the kind of work which I am paid to do - a real customer needs a real answer that I can provide (though it requires time and work - and maybe even a bit of faith). (In this case I need some faith in my own abilities - or at least what I can do when I accept some help from God - in order to be able to effectively tackle this challenge). So - I will try to get back here when I can. Each of you has given me things that I honestly need to think more about - and for that - I thank you! Dennis Posted by: SOIL May 13 2004, 03:38 PM QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 6 2004, 03:02 PM) ... I know philosophers and theologians have debated this for centuries and I certainly doubt that I can provide any more insight, but self-evident reason and physical senses make sense to me as unprovable but valid foundations for a worldview. Sorry, it has taken so long for me to get back to this thread. Tex, I posted a link earlier today in a different thread : http://www.vanallens.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3854 The sermon I pointed to is here: http://www.biblicalpreaching.info/sermonplay.php?id=84 I suggested in that other post, (to A. Uiet Bhor ) that a person can "get into the mind of a live theist" by listening to that sermon (since AUB said he "really wish"ed he could do that. I think there is a part of that sermon which also is important relating to this thread about the essence of faith. I don't know if you and PseudoGod, Cerise, Reality Amplifier, Rameus, etc will be interested enough to actually listen to that sermon - but I do think it might help you to understand folks like myself more - he says it better than I can - and by listening to the inflection in his voice I think that would help you to understand even better. ... I did locate (at a different web site ) a printed version of basically the outline of that same sermon. http://www.desiringgod.org/library/sermons/03/101203.html Since it says at the bottom of the page that the folks at that website prefer to have people post links to the page (I assume rather than just cut and paste portions of the sermon) - I will just suggest that you can just click on the link above and then just use the 'Find' feature of your browser to locate this string: "Salvation: The Glory of Christ" - and then read that section (which contains the two quotes from Jonathan Edwards). During times when I have read through the New Testament, especially when I read a lot at a time (rather than just a chapter here and there), I can almost feel (with something as certain as my senses) - what Edwards refers to in this quote: QUOTE "There is an admirable conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ." -Dennis Posted by: SOIL May 13 2004, 03:56 PM QUOTE (PseudoGod @ May 6 2004, 10:22 PM) QUOTE (SOIL @ May 6 2004, 02:07 PM) QUOTE (TexasFreethinker @ May 6 2004, 01:49 PM) ... It drives me a little crazy that theists of any type would insist that a god gave us reasoning based on evidence and our physical senses and then insists that we shouldn't use those to determine which god claims are true and which ones are false. Yeah, I think I can understand where you are coming from. Somehow though when I read scripture (and when I walk out in the country here where I live) - there just doesn't seem to be much doubt about God's existence. Soil, I used the feel the same way. I would look at a beautiful sunset or be standing at the top of a peak in the sierras while skiing, looking at the mountains go on forever and ever, and be in total awe at the greatness of it all, knowing that god exists. When I now look back on those moments, what I realize is not that I "knew" god existed, but that I was dwarfed by something so exponentially greater than myself that I was humbled. And that greater "something" which I cannot explain is the mystery of life, that which cannot be known. That is what I called god. In other words, "God" was a term for what I don't know, not what I do know. And to be honest, I *still* feel that same sense of awe in life, even as a non-Christian. What I no longer do, because I cannot, is take leap after leap after leap of faith and attribute that sense of awe and humility to the Bible, then to the Christian God, then to Jesus, then to the holy spirit, etc, etc, etc. Nor can I attribute it to Allah or Vishnu or Apollo or Zeus or Mohummad or Brahma or any other god or prophet or savior known to man. To me, that is all tradition, delusions, myths, and the hopes and dreams of ancient primitive man. I honestly believe when all those men say they were "inspired" by "god" what they were inspired by was the mystery of life, and by the unknown, just the same way I am inspired when I look at the mountains. And the unknown, that we are inspired by, is what is known as "god". I am hearing you John. I think I especially heard you when you said this: "When I now look back on those moments, what I realize is not that I "knew" god existed, but that I was dwarfed by something so exponentially greater than myself that I was humbled. And that greater "something" which I cannot explain is the mystery of life, that which cannot be known. " and this: "In other words, "God" was a term for what I don't know, not what I do know." Sorry - that I keep referring back to things I have posted elsewhere - but this I think also fits: http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/job.html Here is a paragraph (which I have not quoted before): QUOTE Thirdly, of course, it is one of the splendid strokes that God rebukes alike the man who accused and the men who defended Him; that He knocks down pessimists and optimists with the same hammer. And it is in connection with the mechanical and supercilious comforters of Job that there occurs the still deeper and finer inversion of which I have spoken. The mechanical optimist endeavors to justify the universe avowedly upon the ground that it is a rational and consecutive pattern. He points out that the fine thing about the world is that it can all be explained. That is the one point, if I may put it so, on which God, in return, is explicit to the point of violence. God says, in effect, that if there is one fine thing about the world, as far as men are concerned, it is that it cannot be explained. He insists on the inexplicableness of everything. "Hath the rain a father?. . .Out of whose womb came the ice?" (38:28f). He goes farther, and insists on the positive and palpable unreason of things; "Hast thou sent the rain upon the desert where no man is, and upon the wilderness wherein there is no man?" (38:26). God will make man see things, if it is only against the black background of nonentity. God will make Job see a startling universe if He can only do it by making Job see an idiotic universe. To startle man, God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist. He unrolls before Job a long panorama of created things, the horse, the eagle, the raven, the wild ass, the peacock, the ostrich, the crocodile. He so describes each of them that it sounds like a monster walking in the sun. The whole is a sort of psalm or rhapsody of the sense of wonder. The maker of all things is astonished at the things he has Himself made. and here is the last paragraph from that page (which I did quote in another thread somewhere?): QUOTE The book of Job is chiefly remarkable, as I have insisted throughout, for the fact that it does not end in a way that is conventionally satisfactory. Job is not told that his misfortunes were due to his sins or a part of any plan for his improvement. But in the prologue we see Job tormented not because he was the worst of men, but because he was the best. It is the lesson of the whole work that man is most comforted by paradoxes. Here is the very darkest and strangest of the paradoxes; and it is by all human testimony the most reassuring. I need not suggest what high and strange history awaited this paradox of the best man in the worst fortune. I need not say that in the freest and most philosophical sense there is one Old Testament figure who is truly a type; or say what is prefigured in the wounds of Job. I suggest everything on that short page is worth reading. -Dennis Posted by: SOIL May 13 2004, 04:55 PM QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ May 6 2004, 10:31 PM) ... If God’s objective was to provide his “word” so that "all" would come to the knowledge of truth, His word should be easy to understand, and immutable over time. ... Howdy RA, You said a lot of thought provoking things in the post from which I extracted the short statement above. I have several things I would like to say about other points you made also - but I will just start here - and hopefully I will get to others later. An interesting thought just struck me and I will share it now - even though I haven't really thought through this much (yet). In the last few years my mind has come back again and again to the fact that Jesus himself did not write the New Testament. I'm certain that he would have been just as capable as the other people who God used to write down what happened in relation to what Jesus did. However, God must have decided (for reasons that I personally can only think about - but not know for certain), that regular sinful folks - (like me for instance) should be the ones to write down what we now consider the "New Testament". I think it is possible that I may have at times considered the "scriptures" to be perhaps more significant in God's plan for people - then perhaps Jesus may have? To my knowledge anyway, Jesus for instance - in what we sometimes refer to as the great Commission did not announce that there would come a New Testament BOOK - and that armed with that book - his disciples would be able to transform the world - in order to bring about the kingdom of God here on earth. I think he did tell the people though that the Holy Spirit would come and provide power: QUOTE Acts 1:8 (ESV) But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." I'm not saying that Jesus didn't know that eventually someone would write down things they had witnessed about his life and death -- which we can now read (and which has been preserved through the centuries) - or that Jesus didn't know that the Holy Spirit would inspire people like the apostle Paul to write down explanations (both doctrinal and historical) of what had happened. However, it just looks to me like Jesus was putting a great deal of trust in the work of the Holy Spirit (and that work could begin and be effective even before the New Testament became available). I think the Holy Spirit is able to help us show others how the love which Jesus demonstrated can live on in those of us who will accept his help. I think that same Holy Spirit can (and does) help us find the root truths in the writings of the New Testament - even after the difficulties associated with language translations and the many other points you mentioned have been considered. I think many of the points you made could also be applicable to other books about historical things (such as our knowledge of Julius Caesar for example). I don't think anyone claims there is absolutely certainty about specific details of Julius Caesar's life - but I do think the basic thrust of the writings about him is most likely generally reliable. I think that with a Holy Spirit alive on planet earth - there is good reason to believe the integrity of the basic essentials of the "gospel" have been preserved to a much more reliable extent. ... just thinking out loud ... (yet again) -Dennis Posted by: SOIL May 13 2004, 05:04 PM QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ May 6 2004, 10:31 PM) ... Consider for a moment the difficulties in knowing the real meaning through the ambiguous language, the allegories, metaphors, and historical references that are typically lost on the average person today. I believe that we would need historians, linguists, classicists, translators and archeologists that were cross-trained in practically all of those disciplines to stave off errors in translating the from the connotative meanings from the original languages not only into modern day English, but into English that is universal clear and understandable to all. The best scholars of ancient Greek today don’t know the language half as well as a farmer who lived and spoke the language 2000 years ago. Those skills don’t exist in the average “target audience” of the “Word of God, which again seems counter-intuitive to the bible as the vehicle of the word of God. ... "I believe that we would need historians, linguists, classicists, translators and archeologists that were cross-trained in practically all of those disciplines to stave off errors in translating the from the connotative meanings from the original languages not only into modern day English, but into English that is universal clear and understandable to all. " I am happy to say that people who are effective in most (all?) of the discisiples you have mentioned have helped in the process of translating (down through the centuries). "Those skills don’t exist in the average “target audience” of the “Word of God, which again seems counter-intuitive to the bible as the vehicle of the word of God." I think those skills have helped to produce the current translations - however I am not so sure that the Bible is the only (or even the primary) "vehicle of the word of God". As I mentioned in my preceeding post - I think the Holy Spirit may be more appropriate as the primary one for that role - and I do think the Holy Spirit is very capable of using the Bible in His work. -Dennis Posted by: Reality Amplifier May 13 2004, 08:36 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 13 2004, 05:04 PM) I am happy to say that people who are effective in most (all?) of the discisiples you have mentioned have helped in the process of translating (down through the centuries). I'm glad you're happy. Who were the credentialized scholars who were cross-trained specialists in half even half the categories I mentioned you're referring to? Keep in mind the context of where I see one of the problems. Specialization is fine, but it can lead to ideological immunity when the specialist is presented with information he does not consider consitent with orthodox field theory's. Cross-training in all the fields to accomplish such a work and avoid errors would take a life-time. In any case, translation is but one of the many hurdles the bibles has to clear in the face of reason. QUOTE I think those skills have helped to produce the current translations - however I am not so sure that the Bible is the only (or even the primary) "vehicle of the word of God". As I mentioned in my preceeding post - I think the Holy Spirit may be more appropriate as the primary one for that role - and I do think the Holy Spirit is very capable of using the Bible in His work. I am doubtful you can provide any positive evidence of the Holy Spirit? Regardless, if the Holy Spirit inspired the bible writers to write the bible without errors, why does it contain them? If the errors have reasonable apologetic answers, why did the Holy Spirit also not inspire the translators to copy the bible translations without errors as well if it's really the Word of God. Also, for the sake of argurment, if Christians can really tap into the Holy Spirit to find meaning in the bible as the Word of God, why would it ever have need to be translated from the original language to begin with? The Holy Spirit would reveal the meaning whatever the language if the entity mentioned in the bible and believed in by Christians really existed? Yes/No? There's also the issue with Pious Fraud. Why in the name or reason would the early church fathers need to resort to forgery if the bible really was the word of God? Why are there only four Gospels out of a possible eleven? Why would God throw all these and other questions in our way regarding the bible if it was really his word? Perhaps that is the essence of Christian faith...to take you around all the whys? Posted by: SOIL May 14 2004, 07:20 AM QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ May 13 2004, 08:36 PM) ... Perhaps that is the essence of Christian faith...to take you around all the whys? I think there is basically one answer that fits (in various ways) each of your very legitimate WHY questions: The enslaved will of fallen humanity. The good news is that God has chosen to work through his Holy Spirit in and among (and oftentimes even through) stubborn men and women who cling to our default condition of rebellion - even though we have available the help of a Holy Spirit which can set our enslaved will free to accept the free gift which God is offering us. I would like to say that we have a PERFECT Bible and we have PERFECT Christians, and PERFECT translations, and PERFECT Churches. However, I think that is obviously not the case. The question (for me anyway) is whether there is anything GOOD in what we do have? Just because something is not PERFECT - I don't think that of necessity means there is nothing GOOD to be found therein. I think we do have a PERFECT God who is willing to work among IMPERFECT people, and some very worthwhile things have resulted from such! I think we are in a spiritual war here on planet earth. I think the teachings of the Bible and the Holy Spirit are able to help us if/when we cooperate. I don't think they are normally seen to operate in a perfect manner chiefly because we (actually me specifically here), do not always allow either the Bible or the Holy Spirit to work in as pure a way as is possible. That requires both a gift of Mercy and Grace from God (operated on me through the Holy Spirit) and it also involves some effort from me - including some FAITH. I think that same formula was required - in those people who God used originally to write scripture, as those who have been (and continue to be) used in translating scripture, and I think that same FAITH coupled with God's Mercy and Grace is also required when anyone of us reads and tries to understand scripture. In a war, people can act very valiantly, but then again the very same person can sometimes act very badly (look at King David in the Old Testament for instance - or even our troops in Iraq today for that matter). Both GOOD and BAD happen in a war. Christians, (like non- and ex- christians) are all still people - and none of us is PERFECT ! So - even though the Holy Spirit is PERFECT - he/she is in effect limited by/through the person being helped - and we submit to the process of being helped in various degrees at various times in our lives. Perhaps a part of what is meant by "FAITH" is the process of receiving help even when it comes through instruments which are not (in and of themselves anyway) PERFECT. For instance, I have learned about the PERFECT God through other people (and perhaps even a Bible) which are not (at all points) perfect - however nonetheless, I still can find GOOD present even amid imperfection. Earlier, in the (bold one line) answer I provided (at the beginning of this post) to your WHY questions - I used the phrase "enslaved will" - rather than "free will". I am currently considering this opinion: Adam did have what is often called today "free will" - but we sons and daughters of Adam and Eve now have inherited an enslaved will. I am glad that God has chosen to set free the will of many of us who desire a free will once again (like Jesus - the "second Adam"). I think the concept of FAITH fits into this redeeming story in some very pivotal place, though I can't explain PERFECTLY what I "believe" - at least not in terms which might be considered airtight rational proofs, (which I suspect many here would require - in order to be satisfied). I wonder sometimes - concerning the things I believe about faith itself - if I am only able to understand (to the limited extend I can) by accepting the help of the Holy Spirit? (Alas! - there are many more things which I do not PERFECTLY understand, when compared with those which I do understand. But that is not surprising I suppose - because that is not only true about the spiritual world in which I live - but it is also true of the physical world as well.) -Dennis Posted by: Madame M May 14 2004, 07:21 AM QUOTE however I am not so sure that the Bible is the only (or even the primary) "vehicle of the word of God". As I mentioned in my preceeding post - I think the Holy Spirit may be more appropriate as the primary one for that role - and I do think the Holy Spirit is very capable of using the Bible in His work. Actually, I think that is even worse than having the Bible as the primary word of God. At least the Bible is written down and can be cross examined by others. Hearing or being led by the Holy Spirit, can not be cross examined in any realistic way, since the "leading" is for lack of a better description, all in a person's head. If I said to you that the holy spirit is leading me to run up and down the street naked yelling "Hallelujah, repent and be saved". Your common sense and your bias about how you feel the holy ghost leads would tell you that no, he isn't telling me any such thing. But how do you PROVE it? You'd have to run to your secondary source, the Bible. But the primary source, holy spirit, would trump the secondary source. If you went to your primary source, holy spirit, it becomes my word against yours. How does one prove who is "really" hearing from an invisible, intangible entity and who isn't. I know many people who love God, are devout Christians, who are trying to live by the Bible and claim to be filled with and led by the holy spirit- who are in complete disagreement with each other. So, how do you know which devout, God loving person is hearing correctly from God and which is decieved, perhaps even to the point of not being saved? Remember, both love God, are reading the Bible, are praying for God's true guidance and praying for truth, both have asked the holy spirit to come dwell inside them. So how could one be in grave theological error. Both can't be right. So why would the holy spirit lead one astray? Posted by: SOIL May 14 2004, 07:45 AM QUOTE (Madame M @ May 14 2004, 07:21 AM) Actually, I think that is even worse than having the Bible as the primary word of God. At least the Bible is written down and can be cross examined by others. Hearing or being led by the Holy Spirit, can not be cross examined in any realistic way, since the "leading" is for lack of a better description, all in a person's head. ... ... Good point (well taken) - Madame M. I suppose the way things work at present are that several factors are involved. For instance in Catholicism (I think) "tradition" is attributed a greater role than in Protestantism ("soli Scriptura"). Maybe I shouldn't even speak of a possibility of primary and tertiary roles. Perhaps complimentary roles would be a better way to speak of the importance of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, the Church, etc... as relating to the topic of this thread - FAITH. -Dennis Posted by: chefranden May 14 2004, 12:52 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 14 2004, 09:45 AM) For instance in Catholicism (I think) "tradition" is attributed a greater role than in Protestantism ("soli Scriptura"). Step ...N+1 in religious evolution: Protestants reject tradition, by comparing it with the cannon. Step ...N+2 in religious evolution: Atheist reject traditional cannon by comparing it with reason. Posted by: Lokmer May 14 2004, 01:21 PM Probably the best definition of faith I have ever heard is from something written by (atheist) J. Michael Straczynski: "Faith requires that we surrender to the possibility of hope." In that sense, I have not lost my faith, though I certainly have lost my religion. Unfortunately, the definition of faith that has come out of the Reformation requires an intellectual commitment to a particular set of propositions. The neo-evangelicals try to dance around the problems that the enlightenment created with this model by clothing this dry intellectual propositionalism in the language of gnosicism and mysticism, but at the end of the day the faith required of Protestants is the intellectual commitment to a set of propositions, aided by (sometimes very profound and life-changing) warm fuzzy feelings. Catholicism is little better in this regard, although the authority it requires submission and commitment to is primarily organizational and secondarily chatecistic, as opposed to the other way around as it is with Protestantism. -Lokmer Posted by: A. Uiet Bhor May 14 2004, 05:52 PM I love Straczynski, but he has some very odd ideas about religion, I think he too generous, hope resides in many things besides faith, but that’s getting very esoteric. Anyway, SOIL, I see you’re compliantly indoctrinated, every question put to you is dealt with by the same pattern of slogans that are repeated throughout your faith. You can’t seem to be able to think outside them, its all about your perfect deity, your holy spirit, things which are neither self evident nor a satisfying answer to someone not indoctrinated. I'd also quit with the Luther quotes, before I start using some of my own. He was a sexist, racist, bigot, and one of the worst humans that ever lived, that you could think so highly of him, show very clearly the state of your mind. Then there's Job, you had to use that one. It was written to explain the lack of any pattern in reality, to excuse the lack of balance and justice in the world, prior too the invention of heaven and hell. It is a work of apologetics, it’s paradox is an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile a god of design, judgement and purpose with the obvious truth that the world doesn’t work like that, end of story. And another thing, how can you ascertain the existence of perfection from imperfect claim to such? I don’t claim to be the most logical person, quite yet anyway, but that doesn’t make any sense, AT ALL. Lastly, I thank you for your link to that sermon, although listening to it churns my stomach I should be interested to hear what anyone else thinks of it here, if anyone else can stand it. Dennis I feel horror and pity for anyone that sits through that kind of thing day after day, and convinces themselves that what they hear is anything other than mindless gibberish. I may address some of the “items” in that rather disturbing tirade of noise pollution, but only after I’ve taken out my disgust on a few more fundies first. Your ever thinking pal AUB. Posted by: PseudoGod May 14 2004, 10:06 PM QUOTE (SOIL @ May 13 2004, 03:56 PM) Sorry - that I keep referring back to things I have posted elsewhere - but this I think also fits: http://www.dur.ac.uk/martin.ward/gkc/books/job.html Dennis, I read the links you posted, and as with many religious writings, I was left with a blank stare. The one thing I have noticed over the years is that religionists have a very bad habit of overcomplicating things or making them so abstract or convoluted that I am left to think the point is to try to intellectually intimidate the reader into accepting whatever the writer says as truth for lack of any other option. Example: "To startle man, God becomes for an instant a blasphemer; one might almost say that God becomes for an instant an atheist" While this sentence sounds very clever and eloquent, it actually has no intelligible meaning to me. And if I need someone to interpret it for me, then it isn't worth my time to read it in the first place. Unfortunately, this describes much of my life as a Christian. Very little of Christianity ever made any sense to me, and I was therefore always dependant on a pastor or other Christian to interpret the Bible or even reality for me. I guess this is where "faith" comes in.....just take whatever you are fed as truth. What I finally realized is that pastors/priests, etc don't have any "special powers", godlike properties, or advanced intelligence that the rest of us dont have, and so there was no reason for me to not think for myself. And the rest is all history.... Posted by: SOIL May 17 2004, 07:35 AM QUOTE (chefranden @ May 14 2004, 12:52 PM) Step ...N+1 in religious evolution: Protestants reject tradition, by comparing it with the cannon. Step ...N+2 in religious evolution: Atheist reject traditional cannon by comparing it with reason. (from my "ever thinking pal AUB"): QUOTE I'd also quit with the Luther quotes, before I start using some of my own. He was a sexist, racist, bigot, and one of the worst humans that ever lived, that you could think so highly of him, show very clearly the state of your mind. AUB, I'm not sure if you would go along with Chef's formula, but I am just thinking that I could also mention some less than fully honorable things about Nietzsche (whom I presume might perhaps be considered to have played a similarly prominent role in the movement away from a "God oriented" view of the origin and purpose of man). I did not say that I "think so highly of him" - I simply referenced something that he said when I was attempting to explain one aspect of how I understand "The Essence of Faith" (the title of this thread). Christianity claims that the basic (default) nature of each man is sinful - so it doesn't startle me that we can find (what I refer to as) sinful aspects in the person of Martin Luther (one who claims to be a Christian) ... and ... it also doesn't surprise me that someone like Nietzsche might run into problems with insanity. From my perspective, a passionate desire to live exclusively according to pure reason (without being guided by any faith) has not always produced the kind of mental heath which one might logically hope to be forthcoming. ... AUB, I want to say THANK YOU! to you for taking the time to listen to that sermon at the link I provided. I think one of the reasons I pointed you there is because of the quote from Jonathan Edwards where he talks about the "conjunction of diverse excellencies in Jesus Christ" . This morning I |