Cofty said-
Christians waffle in metaphors and then pretend they have said something.
Yup, and worse is they don't even understand what paradoxical sayings are, since they've accepted the rationalization of the paradox, having long-ago forgotten what the original disconnect was that led to it being considered paradoxical, in the first place!
That's some heavy-duty suppression of thinking, and paradoxes explain how believers come to accept that first is last, up is down, rich is poor, visible is invisible, poor is rich, faith is evidence, etc. It's just another brick in the wall of the inversion of logic that the Bible forces readers to accept. ON FAITH.
Then if they encounter a paradox that's just a bit too excessive for THEIR personal tastes, they refuse to accept it, but quickly come up with an alternative explanation that fits into THEIR image of God (and it's not hard to find an alternative approach in the Bible, the Holy Book of Multiple Choice Answers, where NO choice is wrong, if you don't think it's wrong and you can come up with a rationalization that satisfies a party of ONE: yourself).
Tammy seems to think if she can find ONE example of someone hearing voices to justify it as the basis of FAITH, that's good enough: she's willing to overlook the VASTLY more numerous examples of "men of faith" mentioned in Hebrews who DIDN'T hear a voice or see visions of future events (including Moses' parents, who had no such experience on which to base their FAITH) so she's able to ignore the MANY EXCEPTIONS that disprove her claim. That's a classic example of cherry-picking, AKA selection bias, only seeing evidence that you WANT to see, and automatically putting on the blinders for anything that DISPROVES your conclusion (where FAITH is another way of saying, 'shutting down cognition and going with one's feelings and prior beliefs').
That also explains why believers are able to excuse Abraham's rape and forced surrogacy of his slave-girl without so much as blinking an eye: they won't ALLOW THEMSELVES to "see" it. Jesus even knew about this phenomenon, being frustrated by those who had eyes but could not see. He wasn't referring to their "spiritual eyes", but their physical eyes and ears.
It's an air-tight belief system, and it SHOULD be obvious that groups like the JWs/LDS/RCC are merely MANIFESTATIONS (AKA symptoms) of the SAME underlying condition that lies at the heart of the problem: a belief in Jesus and God.
So Tammy, are you not aware of Jesus performing miracles? What are all those SIGNS that Jesus is said to have provided? Were these miracles designed to support belief in God via FAITH (unseen evidence) or KNOWLEDGE (visible evidence)?
In Mark 8, Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding a massive crowd with a few fish and bread, but Jesus pointed out the FAILURE of miracles (SIGNS, aka VISIBLE evidence) to build FAITH in eyewitnesses, EVEN in HIS OWN APOSTLES who had witnessed TONS of his miracles with their OWN EYES:
14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16 They began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? 18 “HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember, 19 when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” 20 “When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.” 21 And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”
Jesus was ASKING them to DO THE MATH, verbalizing the miracle that they JUST HAD witnessed with their OWN physical EYES and EARS, but had not understood or internalized, since it clearly hadn't built their FAITH in Jesus to be able to "provide for their daily needs"! They were discussing the FACT (KNOWLEDGE) that they saw with their own eyes that they currently had no bread, yet were anxious that they'd starve! And this, right AFTER WITNESSING Jesus feeding the ENTIRE crowd with their OWN EYES!
Jesus was implying in verse 21 that FAITH does NOT come from witnessing miracles (visible evidence), but FAITH IS built on BELIEVING IN Jesus ability to PERFORM MIRACLES, which Paul continues with Jesus theme by saying FAITH paradoxically comes from NOT WITNESSING signs, seeing visible evidence! That's why Jesus even refused to provide SIGNS from Heaven, earlier in the same Chapter:
Mark 8:11-12
11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
The Pharisees sought to test HIM, seeking a SIGN (visible evidence): Houston, we have a problem, as Jesus doesn't get TESTED (except by his Father)! The request exasperated Jesus DEEPLY, such that he threw up his hands in disgust and said no more signs would be provided.
So your saying that you 'test Jesus' reveals you are thinking like a Pharisee, a Doubting Thomas, AKA someone who is WEAK in their faith.
Of course, it's awfully convenient for Jesus to say that visible evidence is no longer provided to support belief in God, since SIGNS never WERE possible, in the first place.
Cessationists hold that miracles are stopped in modern-times, following the death of the apostles; continuationists disagree, and the disagreement has resulted in a schism in Christianity long ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism
Random errata:
You cannot lead unless you first serve. It sounds like a paradox, but it is a truth.
That demonstrates you're entirely missing the point of a paradox, since I never said it WASN'T based in truth; I SAID paradoxes are designed to appear as illogical and counter-intuitive, until it's resolved away with rationalizations (just as you did with ALL of them).
"And if a man strikes you on one check, turn to him the other check, also."
This is not a paradox.
You fail to understand that the NORMAL human response is to defend oneself when you're assaulted, so turning the cheek is the PARADOXICAL response. Of COURSE it is explained away by citing love for one's fellow man, but you miss the ENTIRE POINT of a paradox: it's SUPPOSED to be counter-intuitive at first glance to grab one's attention.
Adamah: Abraham had to rely on rationalization (a knowledge-based thought process) on a belief in resurrection to justify his FAITH, since he didn't KNOW beforehand that God would call it off at the last moment. God didn't TELL him, "OK, this is a TEST of your faith" beforehand. Tammy: Yeah... I don't get your point. Yeah, it's clear you missed the point. Despite being called a prophet, Abraham BY DEFINITION COULDN'T have known that God was TESTING HIS FAITH by ordering him to kill Isaac (i.e. Abraham couldn't KNOW that God would only have him stop at the last moment), since otherwise it wouldn't be a TEST of his FAITH! If Abraham KNEW AHEAD of time that God would say, "STOP!", then that's not a "TEST" of anything, if one KNOWS what the answer WILL be BEFORE the test is given: that's CHEATING, a rigged game, where the 'fix is in' (already KNOWING what the answer WILL BE BEFORE the question is asked, like the game show scandal from the 1950's where contestants were provided the correct answer, since it made for exciting TV). Abraham HAD to proceed with the test, even plunging the knife into Isaac's neck, having FAITH that God would resurrect his dead corpse afterwards. THAT'S the kind of faith required to please Jehovah, per Paul, and God only stopped Abraham from doing killing Isaac after he got the answer he required (although, AGAIN, it makes no sense that an omniscient being has to TEST things, as it should already KNOW future events; God blows his own omniscience traits by testing anything). All prophets know the future events... because they were TOLD or SHOWN them.
NOPE, not so.
You clearly don't understand that the word 'prophet' in the Bible does NOT always refer to someone who has been given the charismatic gift of 'prescience' (foresight, the ability to see or know future events, which is needed to make prophecies and is granted by God to SOME mortals like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, those who's writings constitute the Nevi'im, part of the Tanakh).
I fully expect you to deny that, too, even though it's a KNOWN FACT, even as the example of the prophet Abraham above should show.
He didn't have to act... but it does show that one is allowed to question God, albeit with respect... because of course you could be the one not understanding, and lacking faith in the love that you know God IS, and the promises He has made and taught... if you think to judge Him without even asking Him.
You don't understand that Abraham didn't question an ORDER he was given by God (eg to kill Isaac)? He questioned a policy that didn't personally involve him (i.e. Abraham wasn't ordered to personally kill the Sodomites; the angels were). Instead, Abraham was actually serving as what Hebrews referred to as a go'el, a mediator or redeemer who acted on behalf of others (in this case he didn't even personally know). This was a respected endeavor which was considered honorable, and his example was used to encourage such interventions on bahalf of others. But you completely missed the significance that Abraham is portrayed as playing an honorable role in Hebrew society, which was obvious to anyone who heard the story in the context of ancient Hebraic beliefs in 500BC. What ELSE have you missed?
No, I'm going with an asking questions; testing the inspired expression approach. You know the one that Abraham used... and then later we are TOLD to test the spirit, to see if what was spoken came from God.
"Testing the spirit" directly contradicts the concept of Jesus' chastizing of Pharisees and Doubting Thomas for their lack of FAITH, example of Abraham offering Isaac, etc so resolving that contradiction falls squarely on YOUR shoulders (hint: you'll rationalize it away with SOMETHING that makes sense to you).
The scenario is you're TOLD that killing the person is the "greatest act of love", and YOU have to act on FAITH.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I don't think you heard me. How would that be the greatest act of love? That is a question I would ask, considering all He has taught ABOUT love.
OK, then let's modify the scenario:
Tammy is told by Jesus that she needs to kill a person as an act of "the greatest love" for them (preventing them from committing a great sin that triggers further bloodshed, even a war), AND for the greatest love of others, since the person is planning to self-detonate on a bus loaded with 100 small innocent children. You can prevent this horrible event by killing the person just moments before they board the bus thus preventing major bloodshed, and placing the issue of whether to resurrect the person into God's hands.
So, what do you do? Whatever you call it (FAITH, etc) do you follow Jesus' ORDERS (as any good Christian is expected to do in similar circumstances)? Or do you insist that Jesus pick someone else to do his work, since your FAITH is all about what he does for YOU, and your faith in him just ain't all that real?
(expecting waffles to be served up piping hot, in response.)
Adam