...eider way, its a duck!! LOL
Question regarding Faith...(adamah)
by tec 210 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
adamah
RVW said-
...eider way, its a duck!! LOL
(it's not a duck emoticon, but it's close enough!)
Or as Shakespeare said, "a rose by any other name is still a rose...."
Adam
-
tec
The apostles failed to cast out demons, where Jesus chastized them for their failure, due to a lack of faith.
And when they did not fail?
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?
You don't know what the thief on the cross felt. (leaving the idea of 'heaven' verses 'the kingdom on earth' out of this for the moment...)
He KNEW he did wrong. He did not try to excuse it or blame others, AND, he did good to Christ (as much good as he was capable of doing from his 'tenuous' position). Christ is not going to forget that in his suffering, another spoke in his defense against one attacking/mocking him.
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?
If the author of Hebrews knew that the above men (apostles, John in revelation - you didn't answer about him; the disciples who drove out demons; Paul) had faith, then he also knew that their faith had evidence. They all KNEW Christ. They saw Him after the resurrection. Their faith was IN Him, in all that He promised would come to pass.
They did not believe that He existed... they KNEW that He existed... and their faith was IN Him.
They knew Him; He spoke to them (and in the case of Paul... it was the SPIRIT of Christ who spoke to Him); He continued to do so after He died and was resurrected, as the Spirit... as the revelation of John shows us; as Paul being taught by the Spirit of Christ shows us; as Christ also said: that He would not leave them as orphans; He would come to them, and the Spirit of Truth would teach them and guide them into all truth.
So that we also can know Him, and our faith may be built on Him, as He is the source of our faith. (the evidence being what is heard)
Regardless of that, if the author of Hebrews knew that these men of faith had evidence, why would he have been stating, like you think, that faith is not faith if there is evidence?
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)
I don't think you answered the question ; )
(And if you are going by the text alone, then Peter did not 'figure it out'; it was revealed to him by God. You're putting your own spin on it).
Peace,
tammy
-
Ruby456
thanks guys - rip and adamah - you are hilarious.
My POV is to try to translate religious idiom into political ideals and take it from there. So this discussion on faith reminded me of an illustration I recently heard at a public talk - the old much used one about the difference between principles and laws. The speaker used the bicycle wheel and hub analogy - He put the principle at the centre and laws around the circumference and said that the laws emnate from the principle. I liked the illustration but disagreed with his conclusion because it seemed to me that it would be more accurate to think of the laws bringing the principle into being as they illuminate the principle and then the developing principle feeds back into the laws which then need adjusting.
-
OnTheWayOut
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."
"BUT NOT ME. NOT ME. I AM GENUINE. I KNOW I AM THE GENUINE ONE AND ALL THOSE ONES WHO DISAGREE WITH THE VOICE I HEAR ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG."
Peace,
tammy
-
adamah
OTWO said, as if TEC-
"BUT NOT ME. NOT ME. I AM GENUINE. I KNOW I AM THE GENUINE ONE AND ALL THOSE ONES WHO DISAGREE WITH THE VOICE I HEAR ARE WRONG, WRONG, WRONG."
Then ends it with a "Peace, Tammy" sign-off, as if that's the manifestation of Christian love.
I'm reading Elaine Pagels "The Gnostic Gospels" right now, which talks about the power struggles and conflicts between the more-orthodox Church authorities grounded in the dominant Apostolic succession structure, and the Christian Gnostics, who threatened the authority of the Early Christian Church since every gnostic initiate was encouraged to seek higher-level gnosis directly from God and Jesus by seeing visions and hearing their voices. With the gnostics, the structure of authority was not to be institutionalized, but spontaneous, charismatic, and open; this was obviously subversive to the order of priests, bishops, etc as the RCC gained some REAL POWER when granted it from the Holy Roman Empire. Christianity, whether gnostic or orthodox, is ALL about power and control.
Kinda sad that the same dynamic is going on now, some 1,800 yrs later (!), esp considering that the Bible is well beyond it's "do not use by" freshness date for it's moral content.
Adam
-
tec
Of course, Otwo (who not too long ago said that he wanted to stay out of these kinds of debates, and I have respected that, but who seems to want to insert himself just to have a dig at me...) failed to add the rest of what I ACTUALLY shared:
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.
Because what difference does it make to you what I do or say or think? You still have the Teacher that you can look at, listen to... even if that is just by their writings. Why not just test anything I share against Him, rather than throw in jabs that are absolutely meaningless?
Then ends it with a "Peace, Tammy" sign-off, as if that's the manifestation of Christian love.
Of course it is not the manifestation of any sort of love. It simply IS a wish for peace. It is kind of petty to snark on something like that, isn't it?
Kinda sad that the same dynamic is going on now, some 1,800 yrs later (!), esp considering that the Bible is well beyond it's "do not use by" freshness date for it's moral content.
But you are the one who won't move past the bible... and TO the Spirit of Chirst. Not me.
It's kind of ironic.
Peace,
tammy
-
Ruby456
anyone here heard about Menocchio, the humble Italian miller who said "I don't believe if I don't see"
Menocchio also reasoned that Christ did not descend from the cross when the jews asked him to because he (Christ) wasn't able to. Imagine saying that in 16th century Italy - well he was condemned by the inquistiion and lost his life for heresy.
One thing he did say, and that TEC may like, is that he wished for a church that was governed lovingly like the one founded by Jesus. (Mind you to Menocchio Jesus was a man who was adopted by God after his birth) in Cheese and Worms by Carlo Ginzburg p 78
-
OnTheWayOut
I am taking some light digs at you, TEC. I just wanted you to see the flaw in your thinking- how it is crystal clear when we apply it to the likes of doomsday prophets or gun-toting whackos or plane hijackers slamming into buildings who do it all in the name of God, but you can't even see how your exact thoughts apply to yourself when others read them.
I haven't seriously followed these arguments and the details. I wasn't trying to declare any meaning by "Peace, Tammy."
Peace,
OTWO. -
tec
I am taking some light digs at you, TEC. I just wanted you to see the flaw in your thinking- how it is crystal clear when we apply it to the likes of doomsday prophets or gun-toting whackos or plane hijackers slamming into buildings who do it all in the name of God, but you can't even see how your exact thoughts apply to yourself when others read them.
I think that only applies to atheists, OTWO. Because it is all the same to an atheist, since to them, there can be no God or Christ/Spirit who speaks. To one who does have faith (or believes, or is seeking) there are differences that do matter, because we were warned that there ARE false christs and false prophets (and there are violent men that rise up among any group). So then seeing them should come as no surprise. Anyone can do anything and say that it is in the 'name of God'; but that doesn't make it so; hence one reason we were sent the Truth. So we could know God, and not be fooled or frightened by others claims about Him.
I haven't seriously followed these arguments and the details.
I know. But that just makes your 'light digs' shallow and without meaning. If you want someone to see the flaw in their reasoning, you should probably be paying attention. Just a thought.
I wasn't trying to declare any meaning by "Peace, Tammy."
I know you weren't, OTWO. My words on that matter were for Adamah, not you. And I do thank you for your wish of peace. Peace also to you, tammy