Faith & The Faith

[awareness]

This came up on that wacky thread known as "Friends."

Bro Ohio questioned -- or "maybe" implied -- if Dave has any faith at all. Dave pointed out that the word faith is tricky. That it has loads of meanings and therefore what it means when spoken or written is obscure (putting words in both mouths -- please correct me if needed).

So why not get this new AltV's off to a start with one of the basics ... or two, maybe.

I'd like to get this nailed down:

1) What is faith?

2) What is "The Faith."

As I see it, fundamentally, faith is subjective and The Faith is objective.

So I'd like to hear what members think or say about faith. And also what is thought about, The Faith.

Just a thought: I stink at creating OP's. Any help or advice will be appreciated. I'm shooting from the hip here ... concerning topics that have me hooked.

[awareness]

My favorite quote on faith comes from Khalil Gibran, who was grown up a Maronite Catholic (but I won't hold that against him ... Ha) in Mt. Lebanon.

Faith is a knowledge within the heart, beyond the reach of proof.
- Khalil Gibran

[zeek]

Faith to me is my intuitive connection to the Ultimate. The expression "the faith" I think originated in Jude 3 which says "Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." Originally, I think it referred to the proposition that Jesus was the messiah. But, over the centuries it became codified in creeds containing more and more articles that people were expected to subscribe to considered a member of the church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Faith to me is my intuitive connection to the Ultimate.

This is not bad, except the "Ultimate" has a name -- Jesus Christ.

Paul took a stab at it in Hebrews 11 ...

NIV: Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

NASB: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

KJV: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

HCSB: Now faith is the reality of what is hoped for, the proof of what is not seen.

I like to say that faith is our "sixth sense," our connection to the invisible things of God. It is similar to seeing -- without which we could never know the beauty of the physical, or like hearing -- without which we could never know the beauty of sounds.

"The Faith" seems to be a collective of the crucial items of the Bible which those dreaded "Christians" believe in.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is not bad, except the "Ultimate" has a name -- Jesus Christ.

Right, to the Christian Jesus Christ symbolizes the Ultimate. That's why Jesus as the Christ is called "the Word" which is synonymous with The Symbol. The incarnate Son expresses the inexpressible Father, as it were. It's a theological circle. This proposition really can't be pinned down though. Ultimate reality exceeds the human imagination. It is mystery. The best we can do is participate in it. Which is what the Lord's Table symbolizes. That's what conscious life is or can be if we have a sense of the Transcendent.

I like to say that faith is our "sixth sense," our connection to the invisible things of God. It is similar to seeing -- without which we could never know the beauty of the physical, or like hearing -- without which we could never know the beauty of sounds.

Which is pretty close to what I called an intuition.

"The Faith" seems to be a collective of the crucial items of the Bible which those dreaded "Christians" believe in.

Right, except that when they got codified they went beyond what the Bible said and eventually persecuted anyone who disagreed. Who determines what is "crucial" is a problem. There is actually wide disagreement about it throughout Christendom as I'm sure you are aware. Thus, we have all these people claiming divine revelation, etc. It's a mess. Witness Lee spelled it out in his attacks on evil Christianity. The problem is he was doing the same thing. That's hypocrisy.

What would a church look like if people admitted they don't know? The U.U? Is there even any reason to have church? I hope my questions aren't stepping on anything dear to you. It's not like I'm trying to tell you what to do or think or not to think like Lee did.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, to the Christian Jesus Christ symbolizes the Ultimate. That's why Jesus as the Christ is called "the Word" which is synonymous with The Symbol. The incarnate Son expresses the inexpressible Father, as it were. It's a theological circle. This proposition really can't be pinned down though. Ultimate reality exceeds the human imagination. It is mystery. The best we can do is participate in it. Which is what the Lord's Table symbolizes. That's what conscious life is or can be if we have a sense of the Transcendent.

If the "Ultimate" symbolizes Allah to a Mooslim, then there is no need for faith. Faith is only needed for the true God, Jesus Christ.

"The Symbol" poorly translates Logos. "The Message" would be better.

Originally Posted by zeek

Which is pretty close to what I called an intuition.

Yes, I liked that part of your definition.

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, except that when they got codified they went beyond what the Bible said and eventually persecuted anyone who disagreed. Who determines what is "crucial" is a problem. There is actually wide disagreement about it throughout Christendom as I'm sure you are aware. Thus, we have all these people claiming divine revelation, etc. It's a mess. Witness Lee spelled it out in his attacks on evil Christianity. The problem is he was doing the same thing. That's hypocrisy.

I agree that creeds are sorely deficient, especially when elevated above the scripture. It seems to me that the scripture is purposely anti-theological, and the only reason to arrange creeds is to rebuff heresy.

Otherwise we are in agreement, especially concerning Lee, who was a worse flip-flopper than John Kerry. He began in the US being against systematized theology, then used it to undermine the scripture. Like you said -- hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by zeek

What would a church look like if people admitted they don't know? The U.U? Is there even any reason to have church? I hope my questions aren't stepping on anything dear to you. It's not like I'm trying to tell you what to do or think or not to think like Lee did.

I have little problem with Unitarians per se, but Universalists embrace paganism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If the "Ultimate" symbolizes Allah to a Mooslim, then there is no need for faith. Faith is only needed for the true God, Jesus Christ.

How do you figure? Those suicidal Muslim terrorists lay down their lives for their faith. What have you done that tops that?

"The Symbol" poorly translates Logos. "The Message" would be better.

Those are unsupported propositions. Got any argument for why anybody should believe them?

Yes, I liked that part of your definition.

So, we agree on something. That may be a first.

I agree that creeds are sorely deficient, especially when elevated above the scripture. It seems to me that the scripture is purposely anti-theological, and the only reason to arrange creeds is to rebuff heresy.

Yes, the Bible is not systematic theology. They rebuffed heresy by making claims about things they couldn't possibly know like what the nature of Christ. Why did they need to make those claims? Well why did Witness Lee? ...because it made him the absolute authority just like the Pope. It's all about power as far as I can see.

Otherwise we are in agreement, especially concerning Lee, who was a worse flip-flopper than John Kerry. He began in the US being against systematized theology, then used it to undermine the scripture. Like you said -- hypocrisy.

Another agreement!

I have little problem with Unitarians per se, but Universalists embrace paganism, pantheism, atheism, agnosticism.

Well, it was a question. I've pretty much given upoin the church as an organization. That's not a criticism of people who still find value in it. Anything that supports people helping people is good. It's just all the other bull%#@$ that turns me off and I've seen enough bull#%^@ in organized religion to last me a lifetime.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

It's just all the other bull%#@$ that turns me off and I've seen enough bull#%^@ in organized religion to last me a lifetime.

I've seen enough in this world to last a lifetime. Occasionally "organized religion" provided me with a breath of fresh air.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I've seen enough in this world to last a lifetime. Occasionally "organized religion" provided me with a breath of fresh air.

What's the difference between organized religion and the world? They are both manifestly socially constructed human phenomenon. When the church claims to be more than that, it has proved to be a set up for disappointment. Hasn't your experience demonstrated that?

Don't get me wrong, this is not my totally cynical assessment of the human race. I'm not saying that humans are not capable of goodness and even greatness. They are. But, the goodness and greatness are human goodnesses and greatnesses. Human goodness is itself divine. The teaching that Christ is the reality of every good thing is a truism because the experience of goodness is taken to be the experience. As Jesus said “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.[ Luke 18:19 ] Organized religion doesn't have a monopoly on it.

The Local Church indoctrinated us into exclusivism. The Gospel of Matthew takes an exclusivist view. There Jesus says, "He who is not with me is against me." [12:30] But, that's the minority view. In Mark 9:40 Jesus says "He that is not against us is for us" in flat contradiction to the teaching in Matthew. And Mark's gospel was probably written first. Luke 9:50 backs Mark up for there Jesus says "He that is not against you is for you" which is consistent with the verse in Mark.

Unfortunately, the institutional church has historically taken Matthew's exclusivist route and for that they needed their creeds. Thus has organized religion blinded people to the fact that ultimate reality is a mystery to everyone not just heathen and that heathen are as likely as anyone else to manifest God's goodness and therefore are among the one's that Jesus was talking about when he said "Love thy neighbor."

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Unfortunately, the institutional church has historically taken Matthew's exclusivist route and for that they needed their creeds. Thus has organized religion blinded people to the fact that ultimate reality is a mystery to everyone . . .

And therefore removed the need for faith. In a sense we could say "the faith" killed faith.

Originally Posted by zeek

. . . heathen are as likely as anyone else to manifest God's goodness and therefore are the one's that Jesus was talking about when he said "Love thy neighbor."

When Jesus said love your neighbor he didn't know about today's liberals. Else he would have qualified love your neighbor with, "except liberals." But surely he knew heathens, and pagans. Those, in His day, were the neighbors he was speaking of, that he wanted to be loved. Today he might have meant that Muslims are neighbors to be loved ... and UU's.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

And therefore removed the need for faith. In a sense we could say "the faith" killed faith.


When Jesus said love your neighbor he didn't know about today's liberals. Else he would have qualified love your neighbor with, "except liberals." But surely he knew heathens, and pagans. Those, in His day, were the neighbors he was speaking of, that he wanted to be loved. Today he might have meant that Muslims are neighbors to be loved ... and UU's.

Right, because he asked "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" and taught "Love your enemies..." Among Ohio's enemies are the liberals and the "Mooslims." He's not expressing much love for them on the forum. Maybe this teaching of Jesus isn't one of those "things in the Bible" that is "dear" to him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's the difference between organized religion and the world? They are both manifestly socially constructed human phenomenon. When the church claims to be more than that, it has proved to be a set up for disappointment. Hasn't your experience demonstrated that?

There's a difference between organized religion and the "organized religion" in my post.

But you knew that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Right, because he asked "For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" and taught "Love your enemies..." Among Ohio's enemies are the liberals and the "Mooslims." He's not expressing much love for them on the forum. Maybe this teaching of Jesus isn't one of those "things in the Bible" that is "dear" to him.

And your enemies are the Christians, the evangelicals, and those fundamentals. You have not expressed any love for them on the forum, in fact, you couldn't even show a little respect to the moderator and owner of the forum.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Faith is only needed for the true God, Jesus Christ.

Not really true. Faith is required with respect to anything that you hold as true but cannot prove to be true. The best Christian apologists, along with the more honest atheistic scientists agree that the true origin of the species, along with the earth and the universe, is a matter of faith. Even if your faith is in a universe with no God of the Bible.

Faith cannot be commandeered into being only applicable to certain kinds of faith, in this case faith in the God of the Bible. Nothing in the Bible says otherwise.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by zeek

What's the difference between organized religion and the world? They are both manifestly socially constructed human phenomenon.

Too simplistic. Dismiss it all because it is organized. Too convenient. Sounds like one of those ridiculous statements by Lee turned against him. It was ridiculous coming out of Lee's mouth in the first place. To take it and turn it back is just to fall back into a trap of Lee's making — only on the other side of the equation.

I guess that only disorganized is OK. Or religion that is "on the ground" or a replacement of that mantra.

It is dismissive with nothing as evidence but the fact that it is not disorganized. And the fact that there is organization in social constructs of the world does not make organization bad.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And your enemies are the Christians, the evangelicals, and those fundamentals. You have not expressed any love for them on the forum, in fact, you couldn't even show a little respect to the moderator and owner of the forum.

Your use of the conjunction "and" at the beginning implies acknowledgement that you accept my proposition and are adding to it. I deny that Christians, evangelicals or fundamentalists are my enemies. I don't engage in name calling and derision of those people as you do with people you hate. I have discussed fundamentalism not fundamentalists. If you took my approach, you would criticize Islam not name call people "Mooslims." You apparently don't see the difference between critical thinking and hate or between the ideological and the personal. I have shown UntoHim respect. We had a disagreement. Adults do that sometimes. And the fact that I am here conversing with you, suggests that perhaps he realized that he overreacted.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by zeek

Your use of the conjunction "and" at the beginning implies acknowledgement that you accept my proposition and are adding to it. I deny that Christians, evangelicals or fundamentalists are my enemies. I don't engage in name calling and derision of those people as you do with people you hate. I have discussed fundamentalism not fundamentalists. If you took my approach, you would criticize Islam not name call people "Mooslims."

Calling them names?!? That's name-calling? That's what they call themselves.

Talking to you is like digging a hole in the ground until it covers my head. Goodbye!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

There's a difference between organized religion and the "organized religion" in my post.

But you knew that.

And I still don't know it ...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by OBW

Not really true. Faith is required with respect to anything that you hold as true but cannot prove to be true. The best Christian apologists, along with the more honest atheistic scientists agree that the true origin of the species, along with the earth and the universe, is a matter of faith. Even if your faith is in a universe with no God of the Bible.

Faith cannot be commandeered into being only applicable to certain kinds of faith, in this case faith in the God of the Bible. Nothing in the Bible says otherwise.

I am not sure they (e.g. scientists) say it is a matter of faith. They say simply, "We don't know" and it is not a bad thing to say simply "I don't know"...

Stephen Meyer, author of "Darwin's Doubt"...an immense read but he is the main push behind "intelligent design" states that it appears there is intelligent design behind the creation of animals and notes the explosion origin of animal life during the Cambrian explosion as supportive evidence. Despite all of his evidence it is still a leap of faith to believe every animal has been created by intelligent design. Also, his theory doesn't negate evolution for that matter.

OF course even Meyer, a brilliant scientist, is not stating it is a result of God's creation although one can make that argument but that is a matter of faith. Unfortunately, the Intelligent Design group have taken his analysis to the extreme. On the other hand, for all we know the group that says that aliens who visited the earth at one time created life (to include man) as we know it on the earth could be true if you have faith. I would rather stick with "I don't know" but the possibilities are....

Faith in the Bible is okay but it doesn't mean you really know.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Calling them names?!? That's name-calling? That's what they call themselves.

Talking to you is like digging a hole in the ground until it covers my head. Goodbye!

You have dug yourself a hole by basing your positions on prejudices which are impervious to reason. Goodbye.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dave

I am not sure they (e.g. scientists) say it is a matter of faith. They say simply, "We don't know" and it is not a bad thing to say simply "I don't know"...

There has been an admittedly small trend among some scientists (I was not implying all scientists) to recognize that if the definition of faith is that you believe that something is true despite a lack of evidence, then the extremes of the origins of the universe, whether by God, Big Bang, or something else, requires faith.

(Of course, believing something is true despite the evidence to the contrary is a completely different animal. And a lot of Christians fall into this category.)

As you suggest, many refrain from claiming any certainty, which then removes the need for faith. If you simply don't know how it happened and you don't need to know, then faith is not required. Even if you search to find an answer. As long as you don't hang your hat on an answer that cannot be more than faith, then faith is not involved.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by awareness

And therefore removed the need for faith. In a sense we could say "the faith" killed faith.

Preach it, brother, Preach it!

Of course what Harold probably means by "the faith" is the Christian religion...or should I say those in the Christian religion that exhibit anything but the faith we see taught by Jesus Christ in the glorious Gospel. Considering it's called "the Christian Faith", it sure seems that many of us are lacking in the kind of faith that is supposed to be the main constitution of "the faith". But I have not yet lost faith that some faithful ones will bring us back to "the faith that was once delivered to the saints". If only I had faith enough that some faithful ones to.....

[Dave]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Preach it, brother, Preach it!

Of course what Harold probably means by "the faith" is the Christian religion...or should I say those in the Christian religion that exhibit anything but the faith we see taught by Jesus Christ in the glorious Gospel. Considering it's called "the Christian Faith", it sure seems that many of us are lacking in the kind of faith that is supposed to be the main constitution of "the faith". But I have not yet lost faith that some faithful ones will bring us back to "the faith that was once delivered to the saints". If only I had faith enough that some faithful ones.....

I don't know why but you remind me of one of my favorite musical groups' song of The Moody Blues, "I know you're out there somewhere" where they sing, "...I know you're out there somewhere...somewhere...I know I'll find you somehow....somehow." That is faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Dave

I don't know why but you remind me of one of my favorite musical groups' song of The Moody Blues, "I know you're out there somewhere" where they sing, "...I know you're out there somewhere...somewhere..." That is faith.

In the end when it comes to reaching the supernatural faith is the only way. Logic and reason and even observation doesn't reach beyond the natural.

The question is, how much faith do we have in faith.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

In the end when it comes to reaching the supernatural faith is the only way. Logic and reason and even observation doesn't reach beyond the natural.

The question is, how much faith do we have in faith.

I disagree. I think supernaturalism is a distortion of faith. It frames the conception of the divine as an object as if God can be encompassed by the mind whereas I see God as the ultimate mystery which cannot be encompassed but always encompasses thought,and is always the more that can conceptualized. Supernaturalism as usually understood today is a response to the Enlightenment concept of natural law. It is anachronistically projected into the Bible when in fact the writers could not have intended such a reading since such a conception of the universe would exist for centuries until Newton. Supernaturalism is a reaction against the prevailing Enlightenment world view based on Newtonian physics. In the 20th century physics moved beyond Newton but the modern imagination hasn't caught up. Hence, we still tend to think in terms of the natural and the supernatural which is a false dichotomy. You know this because you appreciate panentheism which is one way of thinking beyond the natural vs. supernatural split. Panentheism points to the presence of God in everything which means that faith can participate in God who is present here at this moment without having to resort to the fantastical.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I disagree. I think supernaturalism is a distortion of faith. It frames the conception of the divine as an object as if God can be encompassed by the mind. . .

Maybe I got carried away and spoke way tooooo much in the abstract. By the way I was speaking of the supernatural realm, and getting at it only by faith.

I'll be specific.

I think even UntoHim and bro Ohio will agree that "The Faith" is the Bible, or at least where it is found.

Okay, how am I going to enter into the Bible?

Not long ago, I think it was OBW, introduced 1 John 2:2

"He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world."

I think we can all agree that tradition accepts this as basic to The Faith.

How do I enter into this supernatural event? I posit by faith. That there's no other way.

Here's why:

Propitiation of the sins of the world means propitiation for the original disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden.

We find in Genesis:
Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Gen 3:17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
Gen 3:18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
Gen 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Gen 3:20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.
Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Gen 3:23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
Gen 3:24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.


Okay the Bible is The Faith. Well now, how can I enter into that faith when I have to accept:

1) A talking serpent. That God cursed to crawling on it belly, eating dust ... and it doesn't say but, his voice must have been removed, cuz the serpent doesn't talk today.

2) A tree that just one bit infects everyone after that, even up to today. And turns everyone into "gods like us" that yet are fallen.

3) A tree that provides eternal life.

And I have to accept that, if there's been propitiation of the sins of the world it wasn't adequate enough to remove the curse. Cuz even with propitiation the serpent still crawls. Women still give birth in pain. Men still work by the sweat of their brow. The earth is still cursed with thorns and thistles. And we're still not allowed back into the garden.

I have to accept that kind of propitiation of the sins of the world, that changes nothing. How do I do that?

There's no way to enter into the Bible on this accept by faith.

If any of y'all have another way please let me know.

Originally Posted by zeek

You know this because you appreciate panentheism which is one way of thinking beyond the natural vs. supernatural split.

Yes I'm strongly sympathetic toward panentheism.

[OBW]

Hey! I don't think the verse was mine.

But I disagree that the faith is the Bible. Not saying that the Bible is not important. And I am not going to get into a discussion of whether the 66 books that we have are "the Word of God." But I would assert that enough of God's words are found in it to at least gather a group of partly disagreeing people together to find "the faith" within it.

As long as you are not trying to define God, the Bible is a really good text on the nature and character of God. And a decent focus on the principles within which he lives and operates and what is expected of us in our living. That does not make it completely clear. Or spelled-out enough that it can be declared, in itself, to be all we need. (not sola scriptura) It surely makes no comment on "just war" or the right position to take on immigration reform (which suggests to me that it might not be what it is talking about).

Sort of like a high school textbook on physics. Can't build a particle accelerator from it. Or an atomic bomb. But not inaccurate. Neither nothing nor everything. But enough for the purpose.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Propitiation of the sins of the world means propitiation for the original disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden.

Isn't that pretty obviously a mythical story in the positive sense? Does anybody think that literally happened? As a myth it characterizes our way of being in the world, i.e. objectifying knowledge has alienated us from nature.

And I have to accept that, if there's been propitiation of the sins of the world it wasn't adequate enough to remove the curse. Cuz even with propitiation the serpent still crawls. Women still give birth in pain. Men still work by the sweat of their brow. The earth is still cursed with thorns and thistles. And we're still not allowed back into the garden. I have to accept that kind of propitiation of the sins of the world, that changes nothing. How do I do that? There's no way to enter into the Bible on this accept by faith.

Right it's faith in the epic mythical worldview of the Bible. Where else does propitiation even occur? If you commit murder nobody can propitiate for you can they? No judge can justly accept a substitute to accept punishment for your crime can they? Now God does that in the epic myth of the Bible. The NT writers had the Biblical record of ritual history of Judaism to refer to. But, does anybody have an analogue for that in the real world?

By faith in the epic poem which is the Bible, we can participate in a world that is alternate to the one we see around us. Faith negates the "curse" even though it still operates in the real world. It points to a future where all will be right and God will rule.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Hey! I don't think the verse was mine.

Take a look at post #24 on the thread Re: Does The Local Church Teach/Preach Another Gospel and Another Jesus? 2

You called it a good verse. I thought so too.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not going to get into a discussion of whether the 66 books that we have are "the Word of God."

Of course, so far that discussion everywhere else has deadended; as unexplainable, and as neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Moreover, why would we want to smear our dear God with such a claim? To the extreme, I suppose if we searched high and low we could find some that claim the Bible is a incarnation of God. But I'm sure all here, even our illustrious UntoHim, would disagree. Thank God ... for Bible literacy ... or at least for those that have read the thing with an honest eye. Therefore no need to go into it.

Originally Posted by OBW

But I would assert that enough of God's words are found in it to at least gather a group of partly disagreeing people together to find "the faith" within it.

And given history, that has most assuredly been done; tho still today with no agreement fully accomplished, as to just what The Faith is, except in pockets of agreement here and there.

I admit that after all these years I still can't pin down just what The Faith is, in its entirety. And it's not without trying.

But as passed down to me, I'm quite sure 1 John 2:2 is foundational to it.

Originally Posted by OBW

As long as you are not trying to define God, the Bible is a really good text on the nature and character of God.

That strikes me as circular. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by OBW

And a decent focus on the principles within which he lives and operates and what is expected of us in our living.

But trying to apply it to this modern day sure can inculcate us with cognitive dissonance. Its support for slavery is just one example. Stoning the adulterous, and unruly children, are others.

Originally Posted by OBW

That does not make it completely clear. Or spelled-out enough that it can be declared, in itself, to be all we need. (not sola scriptura) It surely makes no comment on "just war" or the right position to take on immigration reform (which suggests to me that it might not be what it is talking about).

It's obvious God gave us a brain. So if the Bible is given by God surely the brain shouldn't be discarded. In fact, given its ultimate importance I would think the use of our brain is essential. I've met way too many that are convinced that the Bible is the word of God that haven't even read the whole thing; that have come by their conviction thru tradition, pasted down the line, thru the ages; that always seems to lag modern research and knowledge of the Bible.

Originally Posted by OBW

Sort of like a high school textbook on physics. Can't build a particle accelerator from it. Or an atomic bomb. But not inaccurate. Neither nothing nor everything. But enough for the purpose.

Well not enough for the purpose of making a atomic bomb. That requires more brain power. The same brain power we should apply to the Bible.

And to determining what The Faith actual is ... and the role faith plays in the effort. That's the purpose of this thread.

Does the act of faith require retiring our brain?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Take a look at post #24 on the thread Re: Does The Local Church Teach/Preach Another Gospel and Another Jesus? 2

You called it a good verse. I thought so too.

Of course, I was pointed to it by something else, though maybe outside of the forum, and it was to note that there was some precedent to an aspect that was discussed in the other thread.

Originally Posted by awareness

And given history, that has most assuredly been done; tho still today with no agreement fully accomplished, as to just what The Faith is, except in pockets of agreement here and there.

I disagree because they have mostly been working with an expanded definition of the faith on which they don't agree, therefore they can't do anything but lob grenades about the rest of the stuff.

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course, so far that discussion everywhere else has dead-ended; as unexplainable, and as neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

Neither verifiable nor falsifiable. BTW, even Popper, who came up with this idea, asserted that there are true things in science that cannot be falsified. Not much, but not everything.

But I digress. Faith is what you apply when you can't verify/falsify. You have your reasons for what you believe in, but it is not able to be observed and verified. If it could, there would be no need for faith. Those who declare that there is nothing that cannot be verified and/or falsified have blind spots in their own beliefs. Either that or they have taken the route of agnostic with respect to those things they cannot answer.

OBW: As long as you are not trying to define God, the Bible is a really good text on the nature and character of God.

Originally Posted by awareness

That strikes me as circular. Care to elaborate?

When I say "define God," I am speaking of so much about him that is not covered in the Bible. Like the trinity. I know that there are some who will come and declare that the doctrine of the trinity is fairly well covered in the Bible. But I disagree. There are many statements about the nature of God as One, and as Father, Son, and Spirit, but they do not define the whole of God. Don't even come close. I'm OK with the somewhat poor definition we give using terms like "essence" and persons. It does appear to be more toward that end of the spectrum than the "they are just One" or "the same" as Lee tried to teach. But both are trying to fill in gaps that are not covered by the Bible. So why do we?

Yet, without trying to pin down what is not there, we have important aspects provided. They are important because they are provided in relationship to us. The rest must not be that important. Yet volumes are spent on it by the theologians.

That is what I mean by say on the one hand that God is well defined and on the other hand not defined. What it would appear that God considered important is defined. And the rest is omitted as unimportant. Not so that theologians can devise elaborate theories and refer to those who see it differently as heretics.

[awareness]

This one fits on this faith thread. It reveals that faith based treatment doesn't work ... even for those doing the treatment:

REVEALED: Founder of faith-healing clinic that 'treated' Josh Duggar resigned over accusations he sexually harassed 30 teens and young women

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz3atrfAUoG

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

This one fits on this faith thread. It reveals that faith based treatment doesn't work ... even for those doing the treatment:

REVEALED: Founder of faith-healing clinic that 'treated' Josh Duggar resigned over accusations he sexually harassed 30 teens and young women

A,

It was difficult to find anything that actually spoke much, if at all, about the faith-based aspects of the system. Mostly spoke about the way this particular organization was run, and the fact that its founder, Bill Gothard, was accused of abusing teens.

This is old news. I remembered this from last year. Doesn't make it better. But it doesn't really say much, pro or con about, real faith-based healing. And doesn't really say what you wrote as the teaser.

And I am not one to put much stock in an organization that thinks they can just order God around like their private doc-in-a-box or shrink-in-a-box.

[OBW]

zeek: Unfortunately, the institutional church has historically taken Matthew's exclusivist route and for that they needed their creeds. Thus has organized religion blinded people to the fact that ultimate reality is a mystery to everyone . . .fficeffice" />>>

awareness: And therefore removed the need for faith. In a sense we could say "the faith" killed faith.

While there clearly was a bit of controversy in the early church that quickly grew to the exclusion of certain beliefs that probably many of us would not have been so fast to exclude, “the faith” is not simply error. It is what is found to be the core of belief concerning God, Christ, the Spirit that is meaningful to our lives. And I don’t mean meaningful in a touchy-feely kind of Oprah moment, but meaningful for living the life we have in front of us.

Yes, there are too many variations in what is held to as “the faith” which makes the whole concept of it being “THE” faith kind of ridiculous. But after saying that, I do not propose that what is common in those statements of faith is not what should be seen as “the faith” rather than the varieties that we see today.

And in that sense, "the faith" would not be the end of faith.

And even if we leave all the variations in place, the worst we have is disagreement on what it is that we do not have proof for that we believe. That is still faith. Just not an agreement of faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

While there clearly was a bit of controversy in the early church that quickly grew to the exclusion of certain beliefs that probably many of us would not have been so fast to exclude, “the faith” is not simply error. It is what is found to be the core of belief concerning God, Christ, the Spirit that is meaningful to our lives. And I don’t mean meaningful in a touchy-feely kind of Oprah moment, but meaningful for living the life we have in front of us.

Yes, there are too many variations in what is held to as “the faith” which makes the whole concept of it being “THE” faith kind of ridiculous. But after saying that, I do not propose that what is common in those statements of faith is not what should be seen as “the faith” rather than the varieties that we see today.

And in that sense, "the faith" would not be the end of faith.

And even if we leave all the variations in place, the worst we have is disagreement on what it is that we do not have proof for that we believe. That is still faith. Just not an agreement of faith.

Because of all the variations of The Faith The Faith is very confusing. And it is true that we can boil all the variations down to find the core beliefs. That may settle it in our minds, but that still wouldn't be accepted by all those of the variations of The Faith.

So The Faith becomes what is settled for in particular groups. Don't ask, for example, those of the Baptist faith to accept those of the Catholic faith, even after boiling them both down to their cores. Those The Faiths are like oil and water.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by awareness

Because of all the variations of The Faith The Faith is very confusing. And it is true that we can boil all the variations down to find the core beliefs. That may settle it in our minds, but that still wouldn't be accepted by all those of the variations of The Faith.

So The Faith becomes what is settled for in particular groups. Don't ask, for example, those of the Baptist faith to accept those of the Catholic faith, even after boiling them both down to their cores. Those The Faiths are like oil and water.

It is true that not all see beyond their variations. But the landscape is not so utterly divided as Lee claimed.

And while we may have dethroned Lee long ago, have you heard of framing? For example, I ask you what percentage of people are "X," then suggest that it might be somewhere in the vicinity of 25%. Most people will then land somewhere around 25%, seldom going beyond 50%. I suggest that we were "framed" to see disagreement as bigger than it is despite the evidence to the contrary.

But on the other hand, there is for many people a line between the world of little or no liturgy and that of liturgy. Between the confessional path to salvation and the crisis intervention, line-in-the-sand, saved-on-this-date salvation. The two sides often do not understand the other and are therefore suspicious. Add to that the overt error within the RCC and we tend to push them off into their own corner. But just like recognizing that there are sinners to love despite the sin we hate and/or avoid, there are Christians who meet the criteria that have errors attached (just like we do). And there are many whose walls are being breached. Not enough, but it is happening. From both sides of these divides.

I think that the flippant "Baptists won't accept Catholics" is not representative of reality. Surely those who are the followers will be slower in the change, but it is changing. And it is by no means true of every group with respect to every other group. Some simply are like the LCM and think there is no one else. Even worse in some ways. And maybe we really shouldn't accept that saying Jesus is not God is within the faith. We clearly are not so open as to accept everything that says there is a god.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But just like recognizing that there are sinners to love despite the sin we hate and/or avoid, there are Christians who meet the criteria that have errors attached (just like we do). And there are many whose walls are being breached. Not enough, but it is happening. From both sides of these divides.

Well when talking Jesus neighborly love is "The Faith," as well as brotherly love. Brotherly love covers a multitude of sins. We are all one in spirit, already, it takes brotherly love to work it out.

I'm sure any follower of Jesus would agree that that is the very foundation of The Faith.

[OBW]

Reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek poem I have heard repeated over the years:

To dwell above with the saints I love
Oh won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know
Well that's another story.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Reminds me of a tongue-in-cheek poem I have heard repeated over the years:

To dwell above with the saints I love
Oh won't that be glory!
But to dwell below with the saints I know
Well that's another story.

That reminds me of:

"It's not God I have a problem with, but His fan club."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Ohio questioned -- or "maybe" implied -- if Dave has any faith at all. Dave pointed out that the word faith is tricky. That it has loads of meanings and therefore what it means when spoken or written is obscure (putting words in both mouths -- please correct me if needed).

So why not get this new AltV's off to a start with one of the basics ... or two, maybe.

I'd like to get this nailed down:

1) What is faith?

The more I read about faith being disparaged on this site, the more I treasure faith. Knowledge and reason are the strengths of the mind, but faith and love are the strengths of the heart. Knowledge is basically limited to the seen, but faith allows us to go beyond the seen to the unseen.

The New Covenant (re: Hebrews 8) enacted by our Lord thru His death is only real to those who believe. One of the greatest blessings of the New Covenant is that "all shall know Him" from the smallest to the greatest. Most of our attention regarding the New Covenant naturally has to do with Jesus as the promised Messiah paying our legal debts on the cross. Jesus says He will no longer remember our sins! Is that good news or what?

Because of this New Covenant, our faith enables us to know God directly. Proofs related to God and His blessings and promises are all secondary to actually knowing Him by faith. Knowing Him is the greatest proof! Unbelievable things have been endured and accomplished by those throughout history who had little more than their faith. Hebrews 11 records just a few of these from the Old Covenant times. How much more has occurred during the New Covenant times since Pentecost.

It's been often said that Satan's primary strategy is to attack our faith. I believe this is true. The stratagems he has devised to attack the faith of God's people are almost unlimited in number. Our faith during this lifetime determines our destiny in the next. Our faith actually will be instrumental in Satan's eventual demise.

With our minds alone we can never know God. At best we can only know about Him from afar. Some of the greatest minds in mankind's history never knew God, and yet some of the simplest minds have had the privilege of knowing Him directly. I think in the next age part of our salvation will be the complete restoration of the minds of all people.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

This came up on that wacky thread known as "Friends."

Bro Ohio questioned -- or "maybe" implied -- if Dave has any faith at all. Dave pointed out that the word faith is tricky. That it has loads of meanings and therefore what it means when spoken or written is obscure (putting words in both mouths -- please correct me if needed).

So why not get this new AltV's off to a start with one of the basics ... or two, maybe.

I'd like to get this nailed down:

1) What is faith?

2) What is "The Faith."

As I see it, fundamentally, faith is subjective and The Faith is objective.

So I'd like to hear what members think or say about faith. And also what is thought about, The Faith.

Just a thought: I stink at creating OP's. Any help or advice will be appreciated. I'm shooting from the hip here ... concerning topics that have me hooked.

1) "Faith" is simply believing what cannot be proved.

2) "The Faith" is the essential set of Christian beliefs, which varies based upon whom you ask, but is basically: God, the Trinity, Jesus is God incarnate, Jesus died for our sins, faith in Jesus is essential for salvation, Jesus will return as Lord to judge humanity.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

1) "Faith" is simply believing what cannot be proved.

While I agree with your statement, I just can't help but think about all the stories from the Gospels. Jesus raised the dead, healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, cast out demons, etc. with a steady entourage of witnesses in a constant state of awe -- yet -- with this steady stream of PROOF daily coming at them, they still refused to believe. They would say, "what good can come out of Nazareth, and has a prophet ever come out of Nazareth," and since they knew the Messiah must be born in the city of David, they never once asked the Lord where He was born.

For those who refuse to believe, there will never be enough "proof." They will always need something "more" for them to be convinced. They will always found another "doubt" to dwell on, another failure by some Christian to focus on, or another new liberal "scholar" to adhere to.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

While I agree with your statement, I just can't help but think about all the stories from the Gospels. Jesus raised the dead, healed the lame, gave sight to the blind, cast out demons, etc. with a steady entourage of witnesses in a constant state of awe -- yet -- with this steady stream of PROOF daily coming at them, they still refused to believe. They would say, "what good can come out of Nazareth, and has a prophet ever come out of Nazareth," and since they knew the Messiah must be born in the city of David, they never once asked the Lord where He was born.

For those who refuse to believe, there will never be enough "proof." They will always need something "more" for them to be convinced. They will always found another "doubt" to dwell on, another failure by some Christian to focus on, or another new liberal "scholar" to adhere to.

When Igzy said, ""Faith" is simply believing what cannot be proved," I think he meant empirically proven.

But it can be proven. As you pointed out it's proven in the Bible.

And that's where the problem starts. It's not always a matter of "refusing to believe" but what to believe? And that hasn't been settled by anyone, really, considering over 30,000 Christian sects using it.

So in that search, of what the Bible means, I think it's smart to consider all sources on Bible knowledge, including the so called "liberal scholars;" and, Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, Evangelical scholars, or any other scholar. If you're really hungry for the Bible you won't dismiss any help in understanding the Bible ; that is our source for proofs of faith.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by awareness

When Igzy said, ""Faith" is simply believing what cannot be proved," I think he meant empirically proven.

But it can be proven. As you pointed out it's proven in the Bible.

And that's where the problem starts. It's not always a matter of "refusing to believe" but what to believe? And that hasn't been settled by anyone, really, considering over 30,000 Christian sects using it.

So in that search, of what the Bible means, I think it's smart to consider all sources on Bible knowledge, including the so called "liberal scholars;" and, Jewish scholars, Catholic scholars, Evangelical scholars, or any other scholar. If you're really hungry for the Bible you won't dismiss any help in understanding the Bible ; that is our source for proofs of faith.

Another way of defining faith is that it is believing something where there is the possibility of doubt.

"Proof" means different things to different people. To some people the existence of the universe is "proof" enough that God exists. To others, they feel they need to physically see God before they have "proof." But real proof in the formal sense is hard to come by. As I've stated before, we believe all kinds of things by faith. Usually what we informally call "proof" is just evidence or common sense. You come home from work and your wife's car is in the driveway, so you tend to believe she's home. But just because something has always happened a certain way is not proof it will continue to happen that way. But common sense tells us it probably will.

Believing in God is, to me anyway, common sense. Also, Harold, I disagree with your comment about the Bible. The Bible is strong evidence, but it is one of the things we take by faith. It's a piece of the puzzle. Again, I believe it is common sense, given the whole big picture, to take it seriously. But there is enough grey area in the Bible, enough room for interpretation, to require faith there, too.

We never have "proof" in the sense of eliminating all possibility of doubt. If we did we wouldn't need faith. So faith is reason taken to a higher level. Faith is taking the evidence and making a judgment about what it all implies. The skeptic says "prove it." The wise person realizes the skeptic is a hypocrite because he by necessity takes all kinds of things by faith, so why not God? He just chooses to be skeptical about God and the Bible because it suits his purpose, not because it makes him consistent in his approach to thinking. Skepticism is an excuse for inaction and self-rule. Common sense will tell you that.

What we choose to believe is as much a character test as an intelligence test. Probably more so. When there is a possibility of doubt, we start hedging our bets and looking for reasons to believe what we want to believe. Choosing to believe what the evidence tells us does not always suit our selfish desires. God, in my opinion, set things up this way. He gives us a choice, but still expect us to choose rightly and accept the consequences.

[Cal]

Witness Lee introduced all kinds of strange definitions of faith which messed up the simplicity of it. He really didn't talk about it much, if you recall, because it didn't fit into his model of certainty and economy. So he introduced things like "faith is the result of the infusion of the element of God," and stuff like that. Now, the Holy Spirit certainly works to help us have faith. But faith is still simply believing. It's believing what we cannot completely see or prove.

But faith is not blind. It's based on evidence and sound reason. And it does give feedback. God has "proven" himself to me over and over. He has confirmed that the object of my faith is correct. I'm not going along hoping to be proven right some day. I already have enough "proof" to know I'm on the right track. Though there are most likely still tests and doubts to come. Common sense tells me that, too.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Believing in God is, to me anyway, common sense.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.

This verse seems to support that mental assent to the God hypothesis is common sense and yet suggest that Christian faith is something more.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I already have enough "proof" to know I'm on the right track. Though there are most likely still tests and doubts to come. Common sense tells me that, too.

I'm with you on that; on the doubts and common sense. People believe in all kinds of crazy things, that we shouldn't so easily put our faith into.

There's such a thing as misplaced faith, or faith placed in the wrong things. I can't tell you how many times that whatever I placed my faith into came to be wrong. Witness Lee is just one example. And putting my faith in Mel Porter, as the lead elder in Ft. Lauderdale, as I once did, is another.

Salvation may be based upon Sola fide (maybe not - the Greek word pistis (faith) may mean faithfulness, as in obedience (OBW)) but because, there are so many systems of faith, that are traps in real life, we need a balance to faith.

We also need skepticism. If I'd been a skeptic when I encountered the LC y'all wouldn't have to put up with me out here today. (And Alternative Views likely wouldn't exist (to bro Ohio's glee ... lol).

Seems to me the Lord, by His grace, has been growing more and more skepticism within me. It's coming late but, thank you Lord ... Amen!

Thanks Igzy -- and Ohio -- for your contributions so far.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

We never have "proof" in the sense of eliminating all possibility of doubt. If we did we wouldn't need faith. So faith is reason taken to a higher level. Faith is taking the evidence and making a judgment about what it all implies. The skeptic says "prove it." The wise person realizes the skeptic is a hypocrite because he by necessity takes all kinds of things by faith, so why not God? He just chooses to be skeptical about God and the Bible because it suits his purpose, not because it makes him consistent in his approach to thinking. Skepticism is an excuse for inaction and self-rule. Common sense will tell you that.

The skeptic may be "taking all kinds of things" by habit or probability and not faith. If he is able to get along satisfactorily by habit or probability without belief in God then why change?

What we choose to believe is as much a character test as an intelligence test. Probably more so. When there is a possibility of doubt, we start hedging our bets and looking for reasons to believe what we want to believe. Choosing to believe what the evidence tells us does not always suit our selfish desires. God, in my opinion, set things up this way. He gives us a choice, but still expect us to choose rightly and accept the consequences.

This argument justifies a judgmental attitude toward anyone who thinks differently. Their character is presumed flawed prior to any observation of the facts. Of course, the reasoning is circular, since it assumes God "set things up this way". And like the skeptic the believer may also be choosing to believe in God because he is "hedging" his "bets and looking for reasons to believe what" he "want[s] to believe". How would we know for sure in either case since only God knows what is in a man's heart?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by zeek

The skeptic may be "taking all kinds of things" by habit or probability and not faith. If he is able to get along satisfactorily by habit or probability without belief in God then why change?

Anything we act on without proof is an act of faith. The question is not whether we have faith, the question is what we have faith in and why.

Skeptics have their objects of faith. They have faith in their skepticism. If they didn't they would act on it.

This argument justifies a judgmental attitude toward anyone who thinks differently. Their character is presumed flawed prior to any observation of the facts. Of course, the reasoning is circular, since it assumes God "set things up this way". And like the skeptic the believer may also be choosing to believe in God because he is "hedging" his "bets and looking for reasons to believe what" he "want[s] to believe". How would we know for sure in either case since only God knows what is in a man's heart?

"Skeptic" in my point wasn't skeptics in general. It was the kind of skeptic that argues against things that "can't be proved" and then goes about his life taking signals based on all kinds of things that cannot be proved.

My point was calling for "proof" is often just a dodge tactic. We all know God can't be proved, so the question becomes does it make good sense to believe in him. Again if you fire back you don't believe in things that can't be proved then that almost by definition makes you a hypocrite, because everyone believes in things that cannot be proved. As I said, the real question is not whether you have faith in something, but in what and why.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

We also need skepticism. If I'd been a skeptic when I encountered the LC y'all wouldn't have to put up with me out here today. (And Alternative Views likely wouldn't exist (to bro Ohio's glee ... lol).

Thanks Igzy -- and Ohio -- for your contributions so far.

Skepticism is an integral part of discernment, which few of us had back in the day. But hey -- had I had it, then I prolly would not have been saved -- so I must trust God's sovereignty at some point.

My personal testimony, as I have often told it, is that, after I was filled with the Spirit in that first meeting, I trusted the brothers more than my own parents. Yes, I understand the dangers of that now, but I did not in those days. And that is why I have always placed the lion's share of the responsibility on the shepherds, and not on the sheep, as the Bible does the same.

After skepticism and discernment, comes cynicism. Cynicism is an attitude which we Christians need to fear. Cynicism closes us off to all the things of faith. Cynicism sickens us with pessimism. Cynicism robs us of the child-like faith in God. Since man has deceived us, we now trust in nothing.

Look at the disciples. You could say that all of them got burnt by Judas, and not just Jesus. Judas was the Lord's personal valet (I think) and appreciated by all. None of them foresaw his betrayal. Judas, we could say, stuck it to them all. Yet none of them became cynical. Yes, they were scared, yes they went to hiding, but they still believed in God, and that faith prepped them for what was to come -- regeneration, and new life, thru His resurrection.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After skepticism and discernment, comes cynicism. Cynicism is an attitude which we Christians need to fear.

Some historians have noted that the teachings of Jesus were very similar to that of the cynics.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Some historians have noted that the teachings of Jesus were very similar to that of the cynics.

Yes but the ancient Cynics weren't cynical in the sense that Ohio is talking about. Cynicism in that sense refers to the belief that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. The ancient Greek Cynics didn't think like that. They believed the purpose of life was to live in agreement with nature. It is the Cynic in the latter sense that Jesus has been compared by scholars like John Dominic Crossan lately.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

Yes but the ancient Cynics weren't cynical in the sense that Ohio is talking about. Cynicism in that sense refers to the belief that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons. The ancient Greek Cynics didn't think like that. They believed the purpose of life was to live in agreement with nature. It is the Cynic in the latter sense that Jesus has been compared by scholars like John Dominic Crossan lately.

Yes, they were different dogs than the ones bro Ohio is speaking of.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Skeptic" in my point wasn't skeptics in general. It was the kind of skeptic that argues against things that "can't be proved" and then goes about his life taking signals based on all kinds of things that cannot be proved.

Yes a person who did would be self contradictory. But, is anybody doing that here? If not, how is it relevant?

My point was calling for "proof" is often just a dodge tactic. We all know God can't be proved, so the question becomes does it make good sense to believe in him. Again if you fire back you don't believe in things that can't be proved then that almost by definition makes you a hypocrite, because everyone believes in things that cannot be proved. As I said, the real question is not whether you have faith in something, but in what and why.

But again, no one is arguing for an absolute standard of proof here, are they? If not, why are you raising it?

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Ohio

After skepticism and discernment, comes cynicism. Cynicism is an attitude which we Christians need to fear. Cynicism closes us off to all the things of faith. Cynicism sickens us with pessimism. Cynicism robs us of the child-like faith in God. Since man has deceived us, we now trust in nothing.

I don't think skepticism necessarily grades into cynicism or that cynicism about human selfishness necessarily precludes faith in God. Anyway, based on what you post, you don't need to worry about sliding into cynicism. You seem to be cynical about anyone who believes differently than you do and about some, like Witness Lee, who do. So, it seems, you're already there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

I don't think skepticism necessarily grades into cynicism or that cynicism about human selfishness necessarily precludes faith in God. Anyway, based on what you post, you don't need to worry about sliding into cynicism. You seem to be cynical about anyone who believes differently than you do and about some, like Witness Lee, who do. So, it seems, you're already there.

Hey, hey, there. I think we're all cynical about somethings and not others.

Perhaps the cynicism bro Ohio recommend that we fear is that found in it's extreme example; like being too cynical to believe in anything.

Would we, should we, call them the faithless?

I know bro Igzy posits that we all have faith. Yes, in a sense that when I go to bed I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. And, by the way, that faith has proven true more than 20,000 times. So ... that's a probability that I'd bet on tonight.

But I'm not talking about that kind of faith. Y'all know what kind of faith I'm talking about; like faith in things and stories in the Bible, and the Bible itself.

I guess what I'm wondering, and asking, is, can faithless people live a happy life? If so, maybe they benefit from not having as much to figure out.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, hey, there. I think we're all cynical about somethings and not others. Perhaps the cynicism bro Ohio recommend that we fear is that found in it's extreme example; like being too cynical to believe in anything.

If I mischaracterized Ohio attitude, perhaps my POV is skewed because it seems I myself am an object of his cynicism on this forum.

Originally Posted by awareness

Would we, should we, call them the faithless?

While I don't think cynicism is on a continuum with skepticism, it does seem to grade into nihilism. When Tillich talks about "modern cynics" in The Courage to Be he seems to be describing nihilists:

Not many people are creative. But there is a noncreative Existentialist attitude called cynicism. A cynic today is not the same person the Greeks meant by the term. For the Greeks the cynic was a critic of contemporary culture on the basis of reason and natural law; he was a revolutionary rationalist, a follower of Socrates. Modern cynics are not ready to follow anybody. They have no belief in reason, no criterion of truth, no set of values, no answer to the question of meaning. They try to undermine every norm put before them. Their courage is expressed not creatively but in their form of life. They courageously reject any solution which would deprive them of their freedom of rejecting whatever they want to reject. The cynics are lonely although they need company in order to show their loneliness. They are empty of bothpreliminary meanings and an ultimate meaning, and therefore easy victims of neurotic anxiety. Much compulsive self-affirmation and much fanatical self-surrender are expressions of the noncreative courage to be as oneself.

Originally Posted by awareness

I know bro Igzy posits that we all have faith. Yes, in a sense that when I go to bed I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. And, by the way, that faith has proven true more than 20,000 times. So ... that's a probability that I'd bet on tonight. But I'm not talking about that kind of faith. Y'all know what kind of faith I'm talking about; like faith in things and stories in the Bible, and the Bible itself. I guess what I'm wondering, and asking, is, can faithless people live a happy life? If so, maybe they benefit from not having as much to figure out.

Perhaps we should make a distinction between objective faith and subjective faith. I don't have faith in objects because they will all pass away even the sunrise. God is not an object. God is the source of every object. Therefore, it doesn't even make sense to argue about whether God exists or not. Of course, we must objectify God in the process of thinking. But, to suppose that that is the truth of the situation is to make a mental mistake IMO. The Jews signify this by spelling the symbol G-d. And when we place any object in the place of God we commit idolatry even when the object is the Bible.

Now humans present a problem to this objectifying tendency too because, when we look into ourselves, we find that we are more than just objects, we are universes. Thus, in this sense we are "gods" as Jesus said. In this way we are not totally unlike Jesus either. But, Jesus expressed God in a new way, and thus is called the "Son of God." Yet, 2000 years later he is still an enigma. When we lose sight of that mystery whether it's because we flatten him out to fit in a fundamentalist box or in a skeptical-rationalist box, we're not looking at the multidimensional picture that he presents. To appreciate Jesus rightly is to participate in a paradox.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by zeek

If I mischaracterized Ohio attitude, perhaps my POV is skewed because it seems I myself am an object of his cynicism on this forum.

Can you blame him?

Originally Posted by zeek

While I don't think cynicism is on a continuum with skepticism, it does seem to grade into nihilism. When Tillich talks about "modern cynics" in The Courage to Be he seems to be describing nihilists:

Nihilists need love too.

Originally Posted by zeek

Perhaps we should make a distinction between objective faith and subjective faith. I don't have faith in objects because they will all pass away even the sunrise. God is not an object. God is the source of every object. Therefore, it doesn't even make sense to argue about whether God exists or not. Of course, we must objectify God in the process of thinking. But, to suppose that that is the truth of the situation is to make a mental mistake IMO. The Jews signify this by spelling the symbol G-d. And when we place any object in the place of God we commit idolatry even when the object is the Bible.

But we want and need an object, it seems. The flesh needs someone in the flesh to represent G-D. Why do you think we needed Witness Lee? And why Lee needed us? We needed Lee, in the flesh, to be God for us, and Lee needed us in the flesh to confirm G-d was working thru him.

Originally Posted by zeek

Now humans present a problem to this objectifying tendency too because, when we look into ourselves, we find that we are more than just objects, we are universes. Thus, in this sense we are "gods" as Jesus said. In this way we are not totally unlike Jesus either. But, Jesus expressed God in a new way, and thus is called the "Son of God." Yet, 2000 years later he is still an enigma. When we lose sight of that mystery whether it's because we flatten him out to fit in a fundamentalist box or in a skeptical-rationalist box, we're not looking at the multidimensional picture that he presents. To appreciate Jesus rightly is to participate in a paradox.

Well don't tell those that founded the five fundamentals. Jesus is not paradoxical in the least. He can be summed up in five declarations.

Why do you think we objectify in the first place? We need something solid. Why does the Bible have to be the Word of God? We're lost without it being THAT solid.

I think the truth is that we have an objectifying brain. It's a human thing. Even God knows that. Isn't that why He had to incarnate? Our flesh needed it.

And now Jesus in the flesh is not with us. So we need a substitute. And seems that actually faith, as much as it's harped on, is not enough. "Give us a King."

[zeek]

Originally Posted by awareness

Can you blame him? Nihilists need love too.
But we want and need an object, it seems. The flesh needs someone in the flesh to represent G-D. Why do you think we needed Witness Lee? And why Lee needed us? We needed Lee, in the flesh, to be God for us, and Lee needed us in the flesh to confirm G-d was working thru him. Well don't tell those that founded the five fundamentals. Jesus is not paradoxical in the least. He can be summed up in five declarations. Why do you think we objectify in the first place? We need something solid. Why does the Bible have to be the Word of God? We're lost without it being THAT solid. I think the truth is that we have an objectifying brain. It's a human thing. Even God knows that. Isn't that why He had to incarnate? Our flesh needed it.
And now Jesus in the flesh is not with us. So we need a substitute. And seems that actually faith, as much as it's harped on, is not enough. "Give us a King."

On the contrary, we need to let go of childish things and individuate. That's the way of the spirit.