by LittleToe 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Faith is a set of beliefs.
It is a mechanism we use when we believe something true but do not have evidence. If we have evidence then we would have knowledge - not faith. For that reason I am always amused by those who claim that they have the "true faith". For something to be true requires proof. The very notion that faith is needed means that evidence is not present - so we have one of the most substantial examples of an oxymoron -viz. "true faith".
For something to be true requires proof.
So how do I KNOW I'm talking back to pete right now? Am I? Am I talking to Pete? Is this REALLY you Pete?
I have faith that it is you....but I do not have proof.....and that is true. My chances are good it's you....but I don't have proof. Is that faith I have that it's you.....or what is it?
Gumby
My relationship with God is as real to me as the relationships I have with those of you I haven't met in person.
Should I doubt your existence?
Your words always sound nice James but to be honest....I never understand half of them. I don't mean to sound like a smart-ass....I just don't connect to your ideas I guess.
That, was a beautiful response, from an honest and straight forward guy. Perhaps the problem is, is that what I am trying to convey, or perhaps it would be better to say "what I am attempting to point to" is the fundamental essence, the ultimate true of our being; and everyone is trying to grasp it intellectually....and it can't be. Will never be. Usually philosophical and theological discussion, attempts at understanding ultimate truth, are focused outwards into abstract ideas, concepts, beliefs and written dogma of mental construction. What I am suggesting is a 180 degree shift of focus back to the Life within oneself. Not to complicated intellectual understanding, concepts or calculation, but rather to the silent depths of That which is before the intellect - the raw present moment aliveness which reads these words even now. That, which can not be intellectually understood because it's too big, too grand, too mysterious, too vibrantly alive! Everything that is significant e.g.: the experience of awe and beauty witnessing a sunset, the feeling of loving warmth when with a friend, the pleasure of a well prepared meal, etc., etc., can not and never will be captured by the mind. Is God/Truth, any less than these experiences? Little wonder that what I have to say seems so awkward and slippery. It doesn't fit into the framework of intellectual discussion. Chances are, most people think I'm a blithering idiot; and, if it wasn't that way, I'd know I was off track. j
Perhaps the problem is, is that what I am trying to convey, or perhaps it would be better to say "what I am attempting to point to" is the fundamental essence, the ultimate true of our being; and everyone is trying to grasp it intellectually....and it can't be. Will never be.
Without a doubt I believe this. But it sure can be alot of fun trying.
But it sure can be alot of fun trying.
I understand. For years and years I read, and read, and read some more, and discussed "Truth" with everyone and anyone who would share some time with me. It was "fun" -- I guess. However, Micheal, it was only when I surrendered all my intellectual understanding, that I had the freedom to look past it, deeper into the present moment aliveness of what I had only talked about before. It may be fun, but the price is very high. j
Bless you all - this is exactly the kind of conversation I wanted from this thread.
If I misrepresent anyone, please feel free to pitch in and clarify.
I'm more than happy for this not to be a "Christian" centered discussion, and my comments are only my musings, and not based on any particular creed. Thank you all for your comments, thus far.
Amazing:
I would like to have more faith...
This is part of the crux of what I'm asking about. Your statement indicates that you have "Faith", although you feel that it is lacking (in quantity). In all honesty, that appears to be a common theme amongst most everyone who expresses "Faith" (regardless of the object of that faith). It seems that "Faith" isn't a constant, but goes through periods of fruitfulness and drought (even appearing to die off, for a time, in some).
Has that been your observation?
dh:
I love the way you expressed it.
So "Faith" is a form of trust, then?
If so, is it a case of a form of trust being based on something, or is it the very essense of that trust, itself?
BlackSheep:
IMHO that would be the bigoted expression of those who claim "Faith" but misuse and abuse the word.
But I'm glad you brought it up, because that clearly is one conception of the word.
REM:So I'm not the only one getting huge amounts of spam regarding weightloss, penile enlargement and viagra, huh?
That's good to know.
Incidentally, I have no faith in my ISP's ability to stem the tide.
Aztec:Are you sure that you aren't describing "trust"?
SS:
Just a quick shoutout - I love your posts. I enjoy what you've so far revealed of your own "belief-system". I often find myself thinking along similar lines, but expressing them in a different framework of reference (ie a biblical, experience based one).
Have we evolved to connect to other dimensions, by means of a scientifically provable active part of our brain? Maybe science will eventually unravel "spirituality".
In this context, is "Faith" the experience, or how we interpret it, or our confidence in the reality of both?
Gumby:
Like you, I hate the way the NWT has rendered Heb.11. I believe it's intentionally vague (similar to the answers to the "how do you know that you're Anointed?" questions).
You seem to be mostly talking about "trust", also (as is borne out in your original post, as well as the one to Donkey). I believe that "Faith" is distinct from trust, although it is a basis for trust.
You are now taking the word of another person(s) idea of what this god is.
We might be assisted in our understanding, by considering what others have said and written on the subject, but is this truly a personal "Faith"?
I believe that "Faith" must come first, to even relate to what those others are even talking about.
JamesThomas:
I love what you have to write, too. Often it seems shrouded in metaphysical parley, I but I get a feel for the "slippery eel" that you are trying to articulate. Again, I'm guessing it helps if you have "felt" it, when trying to relate to these kind of concepts. Your comments bring out the "Christian Mystic" in me.
Faith -- this way of relating -- can be a stepping stone, but can easily become a numbing placebo in lieu of realization of the actual intimacy and closeness of our Source.
This is how I feel about religion.
Religion is often related to as "a faith", but I think that's a misnomer.
To my mind "Faith" is distinct from religion, though our outward expression of our internalised "Faith" may come in the form of religious practice.
What I am suggesting is a 180 degree shift of focus back to the Life within oneself.
Agreed. In my own belief system, that "Life within" has been created by God, who remains within as a constant companion. However, at the very least, the concept of "God" personalises such a quest, and gives us a focus, which our human minds appear to need.
You mention beauty. Why is that a given scene is deemed "beautiful"? We can describe it, and how it is aesthetically pleasing, and all the features, but at the end of the day we declare it is simply "beautiful". It just "is", and that is a reality that can drive us to awe.
That is the closest physical thing that I can related "Faith" to, also.
...it was only when I surrendered all my intellectual understanding...
Which is what I refer to when I so often talk about "submitting the ego". It's a theme common to most spiritual paths, and appears to be the trigger to a level of spiitual consciousness.
I don't want to railroad the thread, however IMHO a Christ-centered submission is perhaps easier to a Western mind, because it has a personal focus - someone that we can submit to, that represents both the divine and all that we admire.
Regardless of whether or not he's the construct of literature, he becomes an excellent trigger, albeit skepticism places barriers to the very essense of that path - that of the reality required by "belief" leading to "Faith".
Donkey:
Faith is a set of beliefs.
...those who claim that they have the "true faith".
Again, that is religion. I suspect that to be an abuse of the word, and designed to entrap people into a dependance on a denomination, making that the focus of the "Faith", rather than anything divine.
JeffT:
My relationship with God is as real to me as the relationships I have with those of you I haven't met in person.
I can concur with that statement. Can you define the nature of that reality? When you delve into it, what is it that makes it "real" to you?
Micheal:
It's fascinating, isn't it?
I would echo JamesThomas's words:
It may be fun, but the price is very high.
Your comments bring out the "Christian Mystic" in me.
Good.
In my opinion Ross, that's where it's at. The rest is just superficial nonsense.
We can waste our entire life dancing around the fire,
but if we want to really feel the heat, we need to jump in.
j
"Faith is believing what you know ain't true."
I think Tom Sawyer said that. Anyway, I don't necessarily believe that faith is a bad thing, although some definitions of faith -- including the one from Hebrews -- are a little too much for me to stomach. There is always -- always -- the possibility for the faithful that they are dead wrong and merely engaging in mental masturbation. But hey, that can be fun too.
Bradley
It reminds me of my first thread on this board: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/16/59704/1.ashx
It's interesting how faith which does not even stand out as an independent concept in the OT (there is no substantive in Biblical Hebrew meaning "faith") becomes a central issue in Christianity. Here the Intertestamental literature seems to be of little help.
However, in the NT the same word, faith, seems to cover a wide range of experiences. Basic to them are the two following (I willfully use psychological terms):
1) the "hysterical" or charismatic type of "faith". Here "faith" is the power which enables one whose desire has trapped him/her into sickness, or helplessness, to step out and let life go on. Check the references to "faith" or "believe" in Mark. Jesus is not the cause of salvation, just a sort of catalyst of faith whose role seems just to let it happen and then name it: "Your faith has saved you." They culminate in the fig-tree episode in chapter 11, which introduces the strange comment of Jesus (literally translated):
"Have the faith of God. Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, this will be for you."
The omnipotence of faith in this sense results in a sort of crisis, where one has either to withdraw in a subjective and rather schizophrenic kind of faith (this IS for me, no matter what happens outside in so-called "reality") or reassess his/her desire (if what I believe WILL happen, what do I REALLY want to happen?). Recalls the previous mention of faith to Bartimaeus, beginning by the very strange question to a blind man: "What do you want?"
2) The "obsessional", Pauline view of "faith alone", which doesn't save in the sense of healing, but "justifying" -- conferring a basic "right to be" that has to be paid at the outrageous price of the death (crucifixion) of one's desire. Summed up in Galatians:
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.
From those two basic concepts of faith one can trace many other shades of meaning. The Matthaean and Lukan, which imply "degrees" of faith; the Pastorals', which cristallize Paul's view of subjective faith into objective faith (= belief or doctrine). Hebrews or John seem independent, but there "faith" is not so much distinct from knowledge: it's a kind of perception of the invisible or upper world.
