What is "Faith"?

by LittleToe 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  JamesThomas:
  But there is where we differ slightly (but probably more from a framework of conception point of view, rather than actual substance).

  In my case I have internalised "God", in more than from merely an intellectual "God is within me" perspective (though that's the best way of framing it).

  "Faith" allowed me to reach out and touch the divine, before (or perhaps because of which) it became part of what I am.
  Therefore "Faith" remains as something tangible, like the air that I breathe and the soul that I am.
  Iam who Iam, yet I am part of All.

  It's more than a concept, though it perhaps begins that way.

  BlueBlades:

  As far as I can discern for myself,he does not appear to anyone anymore since the first century ce.

  Doesn't he? Which of the senses are you trying to use to identify him?

  So, for me I remain a "Doubting Thomas" and wait for more proof

  And yet that which is seen is no longer hope. Therefore that which is seen replaces the essence of "Faith" upon which the hope is based.
  Hence you desire not faith but something tangible with the five senses.

  But,I feel in the very least,Jesus will eventually accord all of us what he has done for those in the first century,give us proof,then we can say as Thomas,"My Lord and My God!"

  He will, but will we recognise it?
  That passage, of John, is my favourite in all of scripture. Thank you for quoting it.
• 

  logansrun

  Little Toe,

  I can understand someone longing for that which cannot or has not been empirically justified but I cannot look favorably on a faith which is actually contrary to the findings of well-established facts.

  I sympathise with someone who expresses faith in God but the problem is when that conception of God blatently runs counter to science and common sense. Gaiagirl raised some very, very good points and put nicely why I cannot fathom any concept of the Christian God. I'm sorry, but I have yet to see you or anyone else make a very coherant and reasoned rebuttel to this.

  It seems to me that if someone truly believes in the Bible they fall into one of two categories:

  1) The fundamentalist: The Bible is word-for-word the literal truth (there really was an Adam and Eve, global flood, etc.) and feels that it (the Bible) is without factual or ethical error.

  2) The liberal-mainline Christian: The Bible in principle is true although it is more allegorical than factual. (This generally doesn't apply to stories about Jesus, though. The Incarnation and Ressurection are too crucial to the entire fabric of a Christian's belief.)

  Option 1 is so incredibly ridiculous on both scientific and moral grounds that I won't even bother talking about it. Option 2 seems more appealing from a humane perspective although then one is forced to stretch the Bible into a theological pretzel to make it appealing to modern minds. This view fondles my feelings but rapes my intellect.

  Any "God-concept" I can imagine would be a wholly philosophical one -- the God of the Deist movement, if you will. Even then, it's a postulate, a working hypothesis, NOT an absolutist belief.

  Cheers,

  Bradley
• 

  Narkissos

  LT: To answer your personal question, the Pauline and Johannine texts are certainly my favorite in the NT, although the two lines of thought are clearly diverging from each other. Both were decisive to me when I left the JWs. Though I came to a critical approach of both, I still love reading them.

  I was never very attracted to the "charismatic" or "hysterical" type of faith. What appeals more to me in the Gospels is the wisdom teaching associated with the "Q-source" (or the "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew), which does not emphasize "faith" at all. Or the kind of "anomian" or "anarchist" Jesus which stems from Mark's use of Hellenistic material, including the controversies about the Law, which are probably alien to the historical Jesus and also don't imply faith.

  As to the Pauline sort of faith (and its Lutheran avatar), I became aware that it especially appealed to my own (somewhat "obsessional" rather than "hysterical") frame of mind, including some "death urge" (to speak Freudian). It's what I tried to approach on another thread of mine entitled "Amor mortis". I am still sensitive to it (and probably will always be), but becoming conscious of that I also became cautious about it because it can result in a very "perverted" (still in the psychoanalytical sense) approach of life.

  I find the Johannine approach definitely less death-oriented, and it is probably the one I still enjoy most unreservedly. However, as I said, in it the specific concept of faith is partly lost. "Faith" in John is in fact roughly equivalent to "knowledge" (in the "Gnostic" way we have discussed at length on other threads). It implies "sight" (in the mystical sense), whereas Paul radically opposes "faith" and "sight" (2 Cor 5:7). So it is more rooted in "imagination". My relationship to the Johannine imaginary universe is probably not anymore that of a "believer", rather that of a relatively independent reader who can step in and out of all kinds of stories, myths and legends. I like to read this into John 10:9: I am the gate. Whoever enters by me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
• 

  Sentinel

  Well, there are lots of Faiths, lots of religious beliefs. That is the one kind of "faith" we hear about the most.

  But perhaps the faith we should really have is faith in our own self, in the way we live our life, based upon our unique experiences along the way. It is that faith alone that gives us the strength to live day to day.

  If someone asks of us what it is that gives us hope and courage we should be prepared to express those feelings. The thing is, we cannot expect others to truly understand. Each journey of the soul is separate. The only thing we can do is encourage others to listen to their "stirrings" and to go with what resonates.

  So, in the end, my faith could not be your faith because we answer to our inner self, and we are each independently different from the other. Yet, in all of this, we are tied to the One Source, the creator of all things.

  This thing that ties us together and unites us as human beings with the One Source is the love and compassion we show to one another.

  JamesT: you say it so well my friend!

  /<