Question regarding Faith...(adamah)

by tec 210 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  adamah

  1. An idea

  2. A conviction

  3. A belief is created

  4. A "divine" faith is created

  5. Knowledge is created (from faith) = Knowing God = knowledge replaces (not longer needed) faith, belief and confidence.

  I actually like the differentiation of faith as being unsupported by visible evidence (but only by desires/hopes/wishes), whereas convictions ARE supported by visible evidence, where both can support a certain belief. Of course, a belief is what we personally accept as true, and rely upon that belief to make decisions.

  Ancients believed that there was special type of knowledge of spiritual (unseen) matters, where Gnostics believed that knowledge was broken into different levels where there were doctrines which were taught to new converts, but there were OTHER secret higher-level "truths" to be learned as one matured in the belief. Of course, gnosticism was heretical to other early Christians, and the Early Church squashed Gnosticism.

  From:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

  Ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being propositional knowledge, indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of George Bush" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and empirical knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know George Bush personally" or "I know Berlin, having visited").

  Gnosis (γν?σις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be "Gnostic" should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the divine.

  See the problem? Obviously one cannot HAVE "an experience with the Divine", so such knowledge is only illusory, and while some may CLAIM they possess such knowledge, it's not proveable to others. In fact, we KNOW via MRI and lab testing that their claims are explained by more-Earthly anatomical explanations, using well-known neurological explanations.

  Indeed, in most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this "knowledge of" ("acquaintance with") the divine. This is commonly identified with a process of inward "knowing" or self-exploration, comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (c. 205 – 270 AD).This is what helps separate Gnosticism from proto-orthodox views, where the orthodox views are considered to be superficial. [23] The inadequate take then requires a correct form of interpretation. With "gnosis" comes a fuller insight that is considered to be more spiritual. Greater recognition of the deeper spiritual meanings of doctrines, scriptures, and rituals are obtained with this insight. However, as may be seen, the term "gnostic" also had precedent usage in several ancient philosophical traditions, which must also be weighed in considering the very subtle implications of its appellation to a set of ancient religious groups.

  It seems to me that Christianity went with a "faith-based" approach, where having faith was the path to salvation; the Gnostic "knowledge of the Divine" approach requires one to claim having "direct participation with the Divine", but that's simply asking for fanaticism and nut-jobs to join, since faith is less-extreme and actually DEMANDS that NO evidence be present. Hence why the ability to speak in tongues, healing, parting of clouds to hear God, etc was phased out in the NT: those modifications to theology was PART of the effort of filtering the gnostic elements out of Early Christianity.

  However, a few Bible readers didn't get that memo, and hence why TEC and others are actually closet Gnostics who still claim direct interaction with Divine beings, even if they don't KNOW they are making gnostic claims. Ironic, no? Nothing new under the Sun, indeed.

  Adam
• 

  tec

  Adamah, have you answered my actual question from the OP? Unless I missed it.

  Did the apostles have faith?

  John, who received revelation... did he have faith or not?

  The disciples who went and drove out demons and such... did they have faith or not?

  Paul, after his road to damascus experience... did he have faith or not?

  Did the author of Hebrews think the above people had faith or not? Because it is his definition that you are interpreting, and how can you do that accurately without keeping in mind what HE believed?

  When Peter said, "You are the Christ"... did he say that based only on a hope, or did he say that based on what he HEARD, revealed to him by God? (I'm not actually asking for your personal opinion on what Peter based that on, because you - as you say - are an atheist, so according to you there is not God to have revealed anything... But I am asking what does the account state; what did THEY believe)

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  OTWO, I'm not too worried about TEC hearing the voice of Jesus, telling her to kill: if she only gives him 1/2 as much guff as she gives us, he'd be sorry he ever asked!

  The point is not whether TEC will kill- she won't. The point is that followers manage to hear a voice that agrees with whatever they already think the voice should tell them. Imagine the coincidence.
• 

  tec

  There are many who do create God in their image. That is a valid point. Many people do that to justify something they WANT to do (start a war, take slaves, not forgive someone/shun/disfellowship them, ignore the homeless and hungry; chase after and/or force converstions, etc). Some will do it based on what they want to be true also (like universalism), something that God wants also, that every man should repent and be saved, that none should perish. But man makes that choice for himself, and is judged by his own deeds/words... that come from his heart.

  Christ doesn't change though, nor God,... regardless of what we WANT to be true.

  That is why each person should to to the source, the Truth, to know what is true... rather than what another person or religon is saying is true. Test what people say against the Truth. Sometimes the student's beliefs simply reflect the teachings of their Teacher. To know if it is true or not, though, you'd have to look at and/or ask the Teacher.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  hannes

  Good and valuable thoughts in this discussion. I would love to contribute, if I could. I wait and listen.
• 

  Mr Fool

  The gnostic way of "knowledge of the divine" is told not to be found in this physical world. Instead in higher dimensions through a special kind of meditation that requires no thoughts, identical to the Buddhist samadi meditation.
• 

  adamah

  TEC said-

  Adamah, have you answered my actual question from the OP? Unless I missed it.

  I tried, or at least thought I did?

  Did the apostles have faith?

  Seems a bit unfair to group them together, doesn't it?

  The apostles failed to cast out demons, where Jesus chastized them for their failure, due to a lack of faith. Obviously their faith varies and isn't fixed. Hence I asked if you had any insight as to whether God uses a "faith meter gauge", and then calculates displayed faith on an average or median reading, or perhaps a t-weighted, etc? Is faith calculated over one's life-time, or only the faith displayed after one is saved?

  And remember the thief on the cross? His example indicates that general gullibility and a willingness to believe in what we WANT to be true is a valuable trait (esp when there's no other alternatives, in his case). He goes to heaven, despite being a thief his entire life? Such paradoxes grow rather tiresome, although some people seem to be impressed with them, and don't know dramatic foreshadowing (i.e. parable of the vineyard, where the owner decides who gets paid how much, even the workers who are last to arrive, fitting in nicely with the "he who is last is first" paradox).

  Did the author of Hebrews think the above people had faith or not?

  Being that he's the unknown author offering them as EXAMPLES of faith, sure. We HAVE to take the writing at it's face-value: what else is there to go on?

  Because it is his definition that you are interpreting, and how can you do that accurately without keeping in mind what HE believed?

  The author(s) defined it, and then offered EXAMPLES of it, even sometimes explaining their reasoning for WHY they were examples of faith. The authorship of the epistle of Hebrews is unknown, and questionable. It really doesn't even matter IF an author believes what they write or not, just as long as they try to remain internally-consistent with their prior claims.

  So yes, I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to go off of what is written, and ONLY go off what is written (aside from examining various interpretations/translations, and learning as much as possible about the authors/characters original cultural context). We have no choice, since claims of God and Jesus talking to individuals don't correlate with what IS reliably known by Bible scholars, based on many diverent sources.

  You DO realize that it is possible to TRY to insert oneself into the author's mind-set, without KNOWING for sure that our assumptions are valid, right? That's the challenge of ALL of history: there's very few FACTS or ABSOLUTE truths to be had, unlike in the physical sciences. History rarely has that luxury, but there is much that IS well-known from compiling the efforts of textual analysis of ancient documents, examining other extant documents that reveal the common beliefs of the time/place, archaeology, sociology, anthropology, etc. It's actually amazing we know as much as we do about the past.

  Even if believers, most respected OT/NT scholars take a scientific approach to examining the Bible, comparing its passages to other sources (A GREAT example is Reza Aslan's well-researched work on Jesus: he's personally a Muslim, but he doesn't let it cloud his research). The problem is the Bible has undergone MAJOR revisions by multiple redactors over millenia: I'm currently reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, and he covers the mistakes that have been inserted into the NT by scribes, some accidental (many early Christian scribes weren't professionals, but literate volunteers in the local group), and some intentionally inserted for theological purposes later, as scribal work was handled professionally by monks. There were MANY different versions of the Bible floating around (eg Gnostic texts recently uncovered, after being buried for 1,600 yrs), and it wasn't until fairly late in Church history that any attempts for uniformity were made.

  When Peter said, "You are the Christ"... did he say that based only on a hope, or did he say that based on what he HEARD, revealed to him by God? (I'm not actually asking for your personal opinion on what Peter based that on, because you - as you say - are an atheist, so according to you there is not God to have revealed anything... But I am asking what does the account state; what did THEY believe)

  Thanks for acknowledging my beliefs!

  That said, you're referring to Matthew and Mark accounts of what scholars refer to as "the Messianic Secret". It's interesting to compare the different versions, where Jesus praises Simon Peter for being the apostle who first figured out he was the Jewish Messiah (where Jesus had been doing everything to encourage people to think he WAS) but then Jesus told his apostles not to tell anyone, vs the account in Mark, where Jesus orders them not to tell (and of course word gets out, which leads to his crucifixion)

  Reza Aslan discusses it in an entire Chapter (CH 11, "Who Do You Think I Am?") in his book, 'Zealot'.

  Adam
• 

  adamah

  TEC said-

  There are many (men) who do create God in their image. That is why each person should go to the source, the Truth, to know what is true...

  Yup, we heard you the first (and 2nd and 3rd) time.

  You DO realize that your advice is utterly useless, since it relies on a variation of a logically-fallacious argument, "begging the question"?

  You're building your entire argument off an unstated presupposition that God exists (and can communicate, no less!), neither of which you've proven; in fact, you've presented compelling evidence to come to the EXACT OPPOSITE CONCLUSION, being that your "source" apparently didn't even explain the basics of Christian FAITH to you? You didn't grasp the "outsider" knowledge of the parables and example which Jesus performed in the Bible, since it didn't fit into your OWN concept of FAITH?

  From:

  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

  Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii

  Description of Begging the Question

  Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

  1. Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
  2. Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

  This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

  Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

  Examples of Begging the Question

  1. Bill: "God must exist."
     Jill: "How do you know."
     Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
     Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
     Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
     Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
     Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
     Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."

  OTWO said-

  The point is not whether TEC will kill- she won't. The point is that followers manage to hear a voice that agrees with whatever they already think the voice should tell them. Imagine the coincidence.

  Yes, uncanny parallels with "near-death experiences" (NDE), where the person who experiences always seem to encounter a deity of THEIR belief system and culture, so eg a Mormon never encounters Shiva, and a Hinduist never sees Joseph Smith up in Heaven, etc. Funny how that works out, huh? It's like God takes special requests, and Heaven and God come in 50,000 flavors?

  Mr Fool said-

  The gnostic way of "knowledge of the divine" is told not to be found in this physical world. Instead in higher dimensions through a special kind of meditation that requires no thoughts, identical to the Buddhist samadi meditation.

  Yeah, I agree, but it's hard to pin it down like that, since specific beliefs and practices changed over thousands of years and differed from Far East religions to Egypt, with TONS of syncretism occurring along the way. And despite the protests of orthodox Christians, many of the early Church fathers had gnostic leanings themselves. The Gnostic adherents believed that rituals and traditions could be handed down, where the initiate was sworn to keep the rituals secret under threat of death (think of Freemasons, Rosacrucians, etc).

  From:

  http://gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html

  In the first century of the Christian era the term “Gnostic” came to denote a heterodox segment of the diverse new Christian community. Among early followers of Christ it appears there were groups who delineated themselves from the greater household of the Church by claiming not simply a belief in Christ and his message, but a "special witness" or revelatory experience of the divine. It was this experience or gnosis that set the true follower of Christ apart, so they asserted. Stephan Hoeller explains that these Christians held a "conviction that direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings, and, moreover, that the attainment of such knowledge must always constitute the supreme achievement of human life."2

  Hmmm, sound familiar?

  I'm starting to think Gnostics were a real source of annoyance to faith-based believers back then, too, and no less annoying with the non-stop, "I know someone YOU don't KNOW, but you CAN know him, too!" pitch.

  Adam
• 

  Ruby456

  thought provoking discussion going on here and I want to come at the question posed from another angle - that faith is constitutive. So, when Paul in Hebrew 11 says that faith is the substance of things not yet beheld, rather than locating the meaning of hupustasis solely in property relations (as Adamah's source has done, although this makes faith very easy to understand if you are or had been rich enough to own things back then) I would suggest taking into consideration that hupustatis also means firmness, courage, steadfastness or better still give it a particularly English school of thought nuance - that is that faith may be seen as constitutive. So on this understanding different renditions of faith are relevant since they allow a more universalisable understanding of faith. (By constitutive I mean that faith makes itself while coming into being. Surely this is what Paul was trying to convey?)
• 

  adamah

  Hi Ruby456,

  Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

  thought provoking discussion going on here and I want to come at the question posed from another angle - that faith is constitutive. So, when Paul in Hebrew 11 says that faith is the substance of things not yet beheld, rather than locating the meaning of hupustasis solely in property relations (as Adamah's source has done, although this makes faith very easy to understand if you are or had been rich enough to own things back then) I would suggest taking into consideration that hupustatis also means firmness, courage, steadfastness or better still give it a particularly English school of thought nuance - that is that faith may be seen as constitutive.

  Of course, when the author of Hebrews said "faith IS x", it implies that whatever explanation that follows is a definition/metaphor, since faith is a concept, a mental contruct that doesn't actually exist as a distinct physical reality that can be seen/touched/examined, but exists only in the readers' brains. Hence it would be anachronistic to use a metaphor that didn't even exist at the time. However, eg examples of concrete used as a bonding agent (and hardening with time), or even the forging of metals to make them harder were known about when Hebrews was written.

  So on this understanding different renditions of faith are relevant since they allow a more universalisable understanding of faith. (By constitutive I mean that faith makes itself while coming into being. Surely this is what Paul was trying to convey?)

  Yeah, I see what you're saying, but 'substantiative' implies something becoming tangible/solid:there is NOTHING that is concrete or tangible about faith (aside from the delusion's seeming resistance to being broken down, AS IF it's made of concrete wall. Beliefs tend to be more resistance to rejection the longer the brain holds them, esp if the person refuses to challenge them, in the name of "protecting" their faith).

  Of course, I suspect the idea of hupostasis is that a Christian's internal faith will inspire them into performing good works that demonstrate their internal faith to others, and by doing so they are earning their right to whatever reward they hope exists. However, there is no exclusive correlation between internal faith in God and works of charity for others, eg atheists perform charitable works for their fellow man, but don't believe in Christian faith (they do charitable works for its own intrinsic reward, without expecting to be rewarded, or out of fear of being punished if they don't).

  In the end though, ALL metaphors are limited by being verbal MODELS and comparisons to aid understanding, and NOT the actual unknown 'thing' they attempt to describe via comparing to the well-known. Hence, all such comparisons are going to be limited in SOME way, and the risk is stretching them beyond their usefulness.

  (And note the irony of Hebrews attempting to teach the concept of an intangible belief such as 'faith' by using a physical item such as a title deed; that's a questionable equivalancy, from the get-go.)

  But regardless of what metaphor is used, we still have a "magical" transformative process occurring, wherein readers are told that:

  1) such a process exists,

  2) it is desirable to possess it,

  3) they can ASK God to give it to them, as a "gift"!

  4) it can be strengthed by reading the second-hand accounts contained in the Bible

  Psychologists tell us that belief in pure fantasties can become very real to those individuals who WANT to believe them (a major trigger being emotional distress), and they can experience hallucinations as very real perceptions, such that they become "really real" to them if they continue to engage in such delusional thinking for a long period of time.

  It's no different from a musician who after much physical practice may IMAGINE themselves playing a musical piece when far away from their instrument, practicing it "in their head" before a performance: so too for delusions. Visualizing them AS reality transforms it INTO their reality, and a feedback cycle results. In other words, delusional beliefs are LEARNED, where "practice makes perfect".

  So what "Paul" is describing as having faith in God displays ALL the hallmarks and shares the traits of what psychologists describe as 'formation of delusion' (and are not confined to just a belief in God/Jesus, but ANY belief that is not grounded with ANY evidence to support such a belief, be it Illuminati conspiracies, UFO/aliens, etc).

  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

  Adam