Good point there AP. I totally agree with youOriginally Posted by atiguhya padma
Good point there AP. I totally agree with you
Re Talesin, when you get right down to it, those words you listed (angels, swoosh, guy, water, heal) may mean vastly different things, and convey vastly different images, between folks today in a conversation, and not just in the differences between now and antiquity. Words may be at best useful approximations of realities and actions.
One Bible quote that may challenge for a lifetime is, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." That might be akin to a first-rate Zen koan and may look a bit like a perplexing puzzle. But rather than taking the easy route and describing the Bible as ununderstandable, if you are so saying I'm not sure but perhaps, it's more fun to take the more demanding path of researching it to at least a reasonably fair depth. The easy route is to be a naysayer; the more difficult route is to face and study the book. Studying with the intension to disprove it's practicality is fine. Its impracticality would have to be rigorously proven, and it's not so easy a proof. Slandering, besmirching and ignoring it is easy stuff. Analyzing it with balance takes skill and poise.
Now, I'm no biblical scholar but are you guys sure the word swoosh appears in the Bible? I don't remember any verses like:
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all the earth:
make a loud noise, and rejoice, and sing praise. SWOOSH!
__________________
"If it is honorable for you to disturb the dead, I shall consider it an honor and will make it my ambition to disturb your living." - Captain Miles Hazzard
Faith is evidence? Are you sure about that??
All you say byquist could be said about the koran, the dhammapadda, the rig veda, etc. Do you defend these books too? And if not, why not?
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Naturally I support all such books which are held sacred by various groups and individuals, assuming they stick to the brotherhood/sisterhood of mankind, which I would assume all three you mention fully do. The fact that this is a wide, wide world with numerous routes makes life endlessly fascinating.
Faith being evidence is an accurate quote as I recall. Not really up to me, you, or any person being sure or not sure about it, but whether such a concept is, or is not, built into the core of reality.
Faith and evidence need not be anything other than complementary and mutually sustaining each other. They don't in any way need to be opposites or against each other.
Yes AP, Faith is evidence - it is the evidence that a person believes. When a person acts and lives according to the things that they believe this shows (evidences) that they are truly persuaded that those things are true. This is called faith. There are various kinds of faith, not just religious faith. Every day we live by faith in one thing or another. If you board a ferry, you do it in the belief that it will bring you to the shore again. Faith is shown in the action of getting on the ferry. Likewise religious faith - it is shown in the action of how a person lives their lives. It is the substance of things hoped for..therefore the evidence of things not seen. You won't know that the ferry will reach the shore until it actually does, but the evidence that you believe that it will, is shown in the fact that you are willing to board it. Faith is acting on belief and therefore is the evidence of it. Faith is the evidence that a person believes.
I don't think faith being evidenced was meant to be taken the way you're trying to pull it. Faith is evidence that a person believes, but that in and of itself means nothing more than "This person believes this thing here exists." It isn't evidence that said things exist, just that a person believes they do. I can have faith that I may fly into the clouds without using any technology, but instead wings that will grow from my back, but that doesn't make the evidence prevelant that there is any chance of me flying soon.
Faith is just a way to believe, it isn't any remarkable evidence of something tangible.
To think is to blog is to distract is to stop is to destroy is to die is to think therefore I am not good enough
Drywen you said "Faith is evidence that a person believes, but that in and of itself means nothing more than "This person believes this thing here exists." It isn't evidence that said things exist, just that a person believes they do."
This is exactly what I was saying, Drywen. However faith is more than just believing. It is acting on those beliefs and being seen to act on them - therefore what is seen is the evidence of what the person truly believes. This is what the bible is saying with regard to Byquist's quote from the book of Hebrews. Belief is not tangible but faith is something that can be seen in action - giving substance or tangibility that the person is truly persuaded in their own mind concerning his beliefs. It doesn't mean that the beliefs are provable but is proof of what the person truly believes. AP questioned whether faith is evidence and I was describing what faith is. It is the substance (with regard to tangibility) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (belief) - as the bible says.
Miranda
Last edited by Miranda; 06-18-2005 at 06:41 PM.
Thanks Miranda for the backup, and I rarely get into the religion area because some people get their feelings hurt, some strike back, some insult a denomination large or small, and nobody accomplished anything. So I am about done with this thread. Literature, for some reason I don't know why, escapes all the firey debate that religious issues sometimes evoke. But I do think that is strange since Shakespeare, Emily Dickinson, Tolstoy, Chekhov, and Eugene O'Neil knew the Bible well, and every other day someone is saying some re-phrasing of some Biblical statement or proverb without identifying its source.
Drywen, (only since we're on this religious topic) you bring up an instance related to your illustration about flying and wings. This instance is the issue of Jesus walking on the water and then Peter saying he'd like to walk on it also, to which Jesus said in effect, "be my guest." Now, if you take the Bible event as recorded as a fiction, then give it not the slightest consideration.
However, should it be a factual event, then we are all faced toward a deeper study and analysis of what might have actually transpired, and how. What law of Spirit did Jesus employ that liquidated the physical law of gravitation? It seemed to be something more than commonplace faith, but rather a full understanding of a universe that exists totally independent of gravity. And which has its impact on gravity. Jesus, apparently, was repeatedly able to make the physics of the world change; say, enabling blind eyes of a man to obtain vision; guy lying helplessly sick on a bed to pick up his bed and carry it home; 10 lepers in a group immediately cured. Our laws of physics were not a problem to Jesus.
Miranda, thanks for the clarification.
Byquist, I can't take the Bible into consideration as a factual account because I haven't seen the acts Jesus supposedly did, recreated in the past 2,000 years in any way shape or form. That alone makes me doubt it occurred, but I'm not one to show any evidence to the contrary that Jesus did or didn't do it, since it's an excercise in futility. Basically, if you can show me someone with enough faith to pull off those kind of feats, I can be more willing than usual to believe them to be possible. Until a resident prophet steps up and starts walking on water and healing the sick without medication or mere coincidental remission of disease, I just don't see much reason to believe it occurred.
And beyond that whole argument of probability, I personally wouldn't have my life changed in the least by knowing someone out there could pull such things off so long as they were able to explain how they did it. I know some amazing musicians that do things I cannot do, some great atheletes, some brilliant people, but that doesn't make me want to worship them for testing the limits of ability. Though I suppose faith isn't meant to be looked at in that same light of ability, I wouldn't know, I've never been a big fan of that sort of belief. Faith just doesn't appeal to me, since I'm too analytical to give in to that kind of acceptance of something in general. I live under an eastern european proverb's line of thinking in that "The believer is happy. The doubter is wise." I'd rather feel rationally adept at accepting something based on reason than to be happy with faith in something I can't explain. Given most any circumstance, I always give what reason I can, rarely if ever a basis of faith.
But hey, I look forward to that whole 2nd coming thing so we can get a chance to ask the main man himself, until then though, I may just have to stick by what works for me.
To think is to blog is to distract is to stop is to destroy is to die is to think therefore I am not good enough
Miranda,
This is the part of the quote that I found confusing: <the evidence of things not seen> It is either badly worded or deliberately misleading. It talks about faith being the evidence of things, not the evidence of belief. The way you interpret it, Miranda, it should read "the evidence of belief in things not seen" shouldn't it? And if that is what it is saying, then I have no quarrel, after all, it is a mundane statement, anyone can see that faith is the evidence of a belief in things not seen.
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
First of all, let me help all of y'all by providing you with a slightly easier translation. "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1
First of all, faith was meant to be simple. Hard at times - but still simple. To understand this kind of faith mentioned in Hebrews, one must understand the story behind it.
Christian faith can be described as this - We have faith that there is a God who created everything, including physics and science. He created us simply for companionship; we are not his puppets, but rather His friends. God shows His love for people by giving them choices and free-will. Sadly, because God Himself is blameless, we too must be blameless to be in His presence. Romans 3:23 states that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." You don't have to be a believer to know that we've all done wrong. Romans 6:23 goes on to say, "For the wages of sin is death..." Although this sounds utterly hopeless, do not despair! Like I said before, God loves us. He loves us with an unconditional love that breaks all rules. Look at the second part of Romans 6:23, "but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained. "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works so that no man can boast." Ephesians 2:8-9. On the cross Jesus suffered immensely so that we would not have to after we die here on earth.
All you have to do is receive the gift of grace God gave us through Jesus. This is where the Faith part finally plays in. True Christians are not just people who go to church and carry around Bibles( although they may and should). True Christians rely on blind faith - that is, they believe that eternal life is theirs if they admit to God they’ve done wrong, ask for forgiveness from God, and then accept God’s forgiveness through the blood of Jesus Christ (who by the way, is the only one who could have saved us because he was blameless). The New Testament states (sorry, I must paraphrase here) that those who have not seen and yet still believe are more blessed than those who have seen and then believed. This is the kind of Faith mentioned in Hebrews. I believe in a God who is unseen. I could tell you that I feel Him and sense Him, or I could tell you I see evidence of Him in creation. Nevertheless, you still would have the freewill to reject what I say. My faith therefore, although it is supported by much evidence, cannot be based on evidence.
Someone else asked what makes the Bible different from other holy books. I too, have often wondered about this. You see, I have a very good Muslim friend from Yemen. Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true, he too believes that his faith is true. The difference between the Bible and other holy books is this - the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.
I am dreadfully sorry for my wordiness, but I feel that one must learn the background of Christianity to understand this type of faith.
What's all this unconditional love stuff? Did God show unconditional love to Sodom and Gomorrah?
Equally, I fail to see giving choice and freewill as an act of love. When it comes to us human beings, who are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, giving choice and freewill can be an act of love. For God, who knows exactly what will happen with the freewill he gives us, it is an act of sheer lunacy.
<the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.>
I think that statement reveals a lot about how self-centred Christianity is. The Buddhist writings, for instance, aren't about 'earning' unconditional love (and how can you earn an unconditonal love? what's unconditional about it if you have to earn it??). They are more about giving unconditional love.This is what makes Buddhism so much greater than Christianity. With Christianity you have to be in with the in-crowd. It's a little club for messianic godlovers. The more I read statements like the one you have just made llamankey, the more I realise how divisive, judgmental and holier-than-thou Christianity can be.
<Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true>
There are around 4bn believers in religion worldwide. No doubt they all say this to themselves. Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?
<Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained.> How exactly does this fit with your previous statement: <unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds>? So believers do not earn freedom from death through their belief in the resurrection then?
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
AP Why are you so prejudiced against Christianity and why do you consistently attack Christianity above all the other religions in the world? I could go through your post and counteract every point that you have made but there would be no point since your purpose is not to learn more about Christianity, but rather to deride it - as you always do. Are you really interested in why Christians believe in a god whose love is unconditional? Do you really want to know, or merely to pour scorn on those that do believe in this god? For me, this god has a capital G and is God, but for the purpose of this discussion with you who esteem all gods in the same way, I will use a small 'g.'
I spent a long time answering your post on the Homosexuality thread regarding blasphemy, but you didn't bother to answer me. I do see that you have answered what I have said on this thread and now understand the relationship between faith and evidence as regards Byquist's biblical quote.
Byquist is wise indeed not to get into heated debate on religion - it is absolutely pointless unless the person you are debating with respects your view and the right to hold it, without deriding it, even if they don't agree with it. Not everyone is so mature.
Do you have any kind of religious belief? If not, is your unbelief more valid than my belief? If your unbelief suits your life, why do you not allow that Christianity suits the lives of others? Shall I deride your godless unbelief? No, because you have a right to it, as others also have a right to theirs whether I understand that belief or not. Do you have a right to compare the god that Ilamankey believes in with a lunatic? To me it is lunacy to believe that the universe, especially the earth with all its myriad intricasies, came into being just by chance - but I wouldn't write in such an inflammatory way because I wouldn't want to cause offence to someone that believes in evolution - and am only writing this here by way of illustration.
You said " Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?" Surely, this being a forum ostensibly for the discussion of literature - you do understand the term 'figure of speech?' Or was this typically a derogatory remark? Do you really need the quote explaining? Say the word and I will explain it to you - it's quite simple really.
You attack Christianity all the time AP. Why? Maybe you would go back and have a look at my reply to you on the homosexuality thread. Perhaps you would have some comment to make as regards how Christianity and Jesus is are treated differently when it comes to freedom of speech and artistic license?
Miranda
QUOTE=atiguhya padma]What's all this unconditional love stuff? Did God show unconditional love to Sodom and Gomorrah?
Equally, I fail to see giving choice and freewill as an act of love. When it comes to us human beings, who are neither omnipotent nor omniscient, giving choice and freewill can be an act of love. For God, who knows exactly what will happen with the freewill he gives us, it is an act of sheer lunacy.
<the Bible is the only one that teaches and displays unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds.>
I think that statement reveals a lot about how self-centred Christianity is. The Buddhist writings, for instance, aren't about 'earning' unconditional love (and how can you earn an unconditonal love? what's unconditional about it if you have to earn it??). They are more about giving unconditional love.This is what makes Buddhism so much greater than Christianity. With Christianity you have to be in with the in-crowd. It's a little club for messianic godlovers. The more I read statements like the one you have just made llamankey, the more I realise how divisive, judgmental and holier-than-thou Christianity can be.
<Even though in my heart I know that what I believe is true>
There are around 4bn believers in religion worldwide. No doubt they all say this to themselves. Knowing something in your heart is a very strange concept. Where do you think your heart is? Do thoughts go through your heart?
<Freedom from eternal death (aka hell) cannot be earned nor attained.> How exactly does this fit with your previous statement: <unconditional love and grace that is earned only by Faith and not good deeds>? So believers do not earn freedom from death through their belief in the resurrection then?[/QUOTE]
<AP Why are you so prejudiced against Christianity and why do you consistently attack Christianity above all the other religions in the world?>
I respond to posts from believers who claim that their religion is THE religion, and also to posts where the impetus is to convert people into believing in their religion. If you would care to look at some of the correspondence I have had with Amra, you would see that I do not single out Christianity, when it comes to expressing my opinion on religious bigotry. It may appear that I am more frequently responding to Christian posts than posts from other religions. If you cared to do a quick survey of the posts in Religious Texts, I'm sure you will find that the vast majority are on Christianity. Am I supposed to only respond to a fixed amount of Christian threads? The fact is, I live in a society that has been structured, influenced, manipulated and conditioned by centuries of Christian thought. So what would you expect? That I should single out Jainism? or the Bahai Faith?
<Are you really interested in why Christians believe in a god whose love is unconditional?>
This is the kind of statement that I mean. Surely, you should have phrased this as 'why Christians believe there is a god whose love is unconditional'. The way you express yourself, it sounds like this god of unconditional love is an objective fact. I find that an insult to my intelligence.
Mirandas, if you are referring to post #85, well I hadn't seen this post before. Now I have read it, I don't see that there is much to respond to. But I will respond on that thread to your post.
<Do you have any kind of religious belief? If not, is your unbelief more valid than my belief?>
No I don't have any kind of religious belief. For me, personally, of course my unbelief is more valid than your belief. Neither you nor I are in a position to judge what is absolutely valid on this position.
<If your unbelief suits your life, why do you not allow that Christianity suits the lives of others?>
Do Christians allow that unbelief suits the lives of others? What was the point of llamankey's post do you think Miranda? Don't tell me that you have singled me out for the same offence that llamankey has committed. In fact, what is the point of your post Miranda? Is it possible you are showing some prejudice towards what you personally believe against my personal belief?
<Do you really need the quote explaining? Say the word and I will explain it to you - it's quite simple really.>
Yes please do. Tell me what the figure of speech refers to Miranda. Does it refer to some part of the mind? Does it refer to emotion? feeling? And if so, is this part of the mind or the body?
Lastly, Miranda, why are you so prejudiced against other religions, that you only consistently come to the defence of Christianity?
Faith is believing what you know ain't so - Mark Twain
The preachers deal with men of straw, as they are men of straw themselves - Henry David Thoreau
The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin
The teaching of the church, theoretically astute, is a lie in practice and a compound of vulgar superstitions and sorcery - Leo Tolstoy
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote