- Status
C
clem456
Guest
I like this.
Based on this, is it fair to say that faith implies a relationship with a person (God) rather than simply and solely (not excluding, don’t all jump on me), a set of doctrines?
This has huge implications.
F
ffg
Guest
Point taken.
The key is the apprehension, that turns the definition into an opinion.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Yes, I pass judgements on ideas and motivations. Show me one who does not, and I will show you intelligence and reason wasted. It is good to see that you too make judgements. To call me out required you to make a judgement of my post. And I applaud you, rather than criticize you for it. Not that I believe that you are correct, but at least you made a judgement.
Emotional? No. I base my judgements of baloney and bias on reason. Challenge my reason instead of pooh-poohing the fact that I come to conclusions, and you will win my respect.
What questions can be settled entirely by evidence? I have found very few. Therefore, faith is necessary in practically every human endeavor.
In this post, you suggest that faith = mysticism. I suggest that unveils further bias. I don’t equate the two. They have entirely different definitions.
Mysticism
- the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics.
- a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with God through contemplation or ecstasy.
- obscure thought or speculation.
N
nmgauss
Guest
Roscoe Turner mentioned Buddhists as being non-theistic. Major aspects of non-theism can be found in Hinduism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, and Confucianism. Some have argued that Confucianism is not a religion because there no concepts of faith or the after life. Hinduism has no central authoritative teaching on the concept of faith with the result that it has a large variation in beliefs from sect to sect.
In fact, in Karen Armstrong’s book “History of God”, only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are focused on GOD.
Without any incontrovertible proof that there is such an entity as GOD, five of the world’s religions do not promote faith in the existence of GOD. Is this because nothing on which to base rational conclusions has been identified, or is it because faith has to be established as a state of mind acquired by prayer and meditation?
In fact, in Karen Armstrong’s book “History of God”, only Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are focused on GOD.
Without any incontrovertible proof that there is such an entity as GOD, five of the world’s religions do not promote faith in the existence of GOD. Is this because nothing on which to base rational conclusions has been identified, or is it because faith has to be established as a state of mind acquired by prayer and meditation?
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
If God exists (and I know from a number of experiences that He does - and so does the devil), very rational.
If He doesn’t exist, most irrational.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
One of basis of Christaintity is the Trinity which is a mystery. Also we proclaim the mystery of Faith during the Mass. Mystery implies hidden knowledge. Whether that knowledge can be gained by rational thought is a “mystery” 
since we can’t know what we don’t know. It is implied that it is outside rational thought.
since we can’t know what we don’t know. It is implied that it is outside rational thought.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
Leaving aside the basic question of God’s existence (ie. a “first cause”), the reality is that any “faith” we have in a Trinity, Christ etc. (ie. the Christian “faith”) depends on the testimony of others for a start. If we didn’t have the apostolic record or the Bible, we wouldn’t even begin to guess at a Trinity, Christ, the role of Mary etc.One of basis of Christaintity is the Trinity which is a mystery. Also we proclaim the mystery of Faith during the Mass. Mystery implies hidden knowledge. Whether that knowledge can be gained by rational thought is a “mystery”
So what we call “faith” depends in the first place on the hardwon experience of preceding generations. None of us develop “faith” in a complete vacuum.
I had the peculiar expeience of my first “double whammy” around Christmas 1983, which took place at Forest Glen Caravan Park, just south of Nambour in SE Queensland - in a specific place, at a specific time. The story is that I was helping out in a Scripture Union Beach Mission as a new Christian. I wasn’t in a good frame of mind, and I remember thinking to myself “How do I know this (Christian belief) is true?” And in that frame of mind, when the camp leader read out the words, “… a man after my own heart…” from one of the books of Samuel (referrring to David), this “double whammy” suddenly hit me - like a breath going through you in waves from head to foot.
I nearly fell off the chair, I got such a shock. And this was in broad daylight, at around 3pm in the afternoon.
I next looked around in wide eyed amazement to see what the others were making of it. But of course they weren’t taking the least bit of notice, but were just sitting there listening to the camp leader. The reason simply was that it hadn’t happened to them - the experience was hidden, and given only to me on that occasion. I had two more incidentally, both times back in my resident Presbyterian Church of the day, both times highlighting words my old pastor was saying.
However it was given in a Christian context - the leader was reading from the Bible, referring to one of the Old Testament heroes, within the context of a prophetic book.
Hence my quite reasonable assumption was that the Being who hit me with the “double whammy” was the Christian God or one of His agents eg. an angel. Without that background, had the same thing occurred in another context eg. Moslem, Jewish or Hindu, Buddhist, or even agnostic, what would I make of it?
What my previous training told me of course. So my interpretation of faith wasn’t just based on some sort of blind belief - it depended on the legacy of others, and quite a long time ago as it turns out. David and Samuel lived about 3000 years ago, but God used their history to give me a message of encouragement in Christmas 1983.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
It sounds like a profound experience to you, I don’t see the significance though. Doesn’t make it any less profound but I don’t get what you are trying to convey or why you think it is significant.
I do understand the significance of context though. It gives the frame to the experience and allows you to describe it and process it though the filter of your language (spiritual and linguistic.) If you were raised in another tradition you would probably see it through that filter. Like people calling a locomotive an iron horse. They had to relate it to something they did know in order to describe it.
A
Aloysium
Guest
you have a lot of faith in what people tell you religions are all about
N
nmgauss
Guest
Roscoe mentions belief in the Trinity as part of Christianity. This concept was debated prior to the Nicean Council in the 4th century.
“Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism and Arianism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in 325, 360, and 431 AD, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus”
Thus the Roman Catholic bishops wanted to agree on the nature of Jesus vis-à-vis God and the Holy Spirit. So they arrived a the Trinity.
But this concept was abandoned by later Christian groups.
Modern nontrinitarian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians and the United Church of God. Islam, which considers Jesus a prophet but not divine,[101] teaches the absolute indivisibility of a supremely sovereign and transcendent god (see God in Islam),[102] and is distinctly anti-trinitarian as several verses of the Koran teach that the doctrine of Trinity is blasphemous.
So faith in the Trinity has become an integral part of Roman Catholicism because that was taught. Here faith occurs because of the culture setting one is surrounded by.
“Various nontrinitarian views, such as Adoptionism, Monarchianism and Arianism existed prior to the formal definition of the Trinity doctrine in 325, 360, and 431 AD, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus”
Thus the Roman Catholic bishops wanted to agree on the nature of Jesus vis-à-vis God and the Holy Spirit. So they arrived a the Trinity.
But this concept was abandoned by later Christian groups.
Modern nontrinitarian groups or denominations include Christadelphians, Christian Scientists, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), Dawn Bible Students, Friends General Conference, Iglesia ni Cristo, Jehovah’s Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, Living Church of God, Oneness Pentecostals, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Universalist Christians and the United Church of God. Islam, which considers Jesus a prophet but not divine,[101] teaches the absolute indivisibility of a supremely sovereign and transcendent god (see God in Islam),[102] and is distinctly anti-trinitarian as several verses of the Koran teach that the doctrine of Trinity is blasphemous.
So faith in the Trinity has become an integral part of Roman Catholicism because that was taught. Here faith occurs because of the culture setting one is surrounded by.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
The significance to me was that I’d been in a very sceptical frame of mind viz. “How do I know all this (Christianity) is true?”, and I was given a direct, supernatural response just when I needed it, and no mistake, I can tell you.
Therefore It was true.
Not only that, but I also received encouragement at the same time (which has been sorely lacking at other times in my life).
From the point of view of this particular thread, the significance is that our “faith” does not take place in a vacuum, but necessarily requires a personal precognition of Christianity in some form or another beforehand.
R
Roscoe_Turner
Guest
I agree the religion and culture that we grow up in colors our understanding of our experiences.
You could have just as easily identified with Saul rather than David given a different contextual frame. That you had failed and another would take your place. Or you could have dismissed it as coincidence. But yet… here you are
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
I don’t think I’d have identified with King Saul, since the words that were highlighted by the “double whammy” were “… a man after my own heart …”. It was quite specific, and somewhat emphatic. And out of the blue. I sure wasn’t expecting it. I was down in the dumps, feeling very doubtful, and what this episode did was to assuage both states of mind. You might say my spirits picked up somewhat.I agree the religion and culture that we grow up in colors our understanding of our experiences.
You could have just as easily identified with Saul rather than David given a different contextual frame. That you had failed and another would take your place. Or you could have dismissed it as coincidence. But yet… here you are
There was nothing about being “rejected”. I’d already had a lot of that from my own father, and I didn’t need more. I even went a couple of times to a deaf charismatic outfit back in my Protestant days, and one of the leaders at one time said to me, “Oh! There’s such a strong spirit of rejection! I can feel it!” But that was in a different context.
The other two double whammies were in relation to St. Paul, and CS Lewis. Again I’d have been very unlikely to identify with anyone else, since they’d both been mentioned just prior to the “double whammies”, and the words related just to them.
D
Dan_Grelinger
Guest
Nice trick. Common, and easy to see through, though. Propose only two false choices as if those were the only possibilities, and then try to constrain the reader to pick only from those false choices.
Again, bias is evident.
Expand your mind, nmgauss! Surely you must see that there are many other possibilities than the two narrow ones you propose.
If you need help, I am here.
C
clem456
Guest
There is a large body of Christian though that says faith is what is left after the intellect is out of the way. It can’t be acquired, or held, or proven. The more you try to dissect it, the harder it is to realize. We call it one of the theological virtues, along with hope and charity, because it is not something one acquires of one’s own, it is a gift from God, accepted by the person. Faith requires obedience which for many people (me) is the biggest stumbling block.
N
nmgauss
Guest
In many circles, to doubt messages from the divine is to lose faith. This can create an attitude of skepticism that is counter to our prevailing goal toward progress. Galileo was prosecuted by the Roman Catholic authorities because he dared to say anything considered blasphemous.
If you have unquestioned faith in your religious convictions, you are essentially saying that your analytical thinking toward anything counter to your convictions has ceased. This is what I call blind faith.
C
clem456
Guest
Are you certain of that?
J
John_Martin
Guest
People walked away from Jesus for his “hard sayings”; they maintained their questioning instead of knowing him as Truth (in their intellect) when the sayings got hard. We only know through our bodily senses (our souls processing what the senses deliver). The senses deliver Jesus to our thinking, then in person in Galilee, and now in the Church and Sacraments. (I don’t say the Scriptures, but the Church, for the Scriptures are the creation of the Church, the original writers being spokespersons for the Church and Jesus, and the Church assembling a set of the writings that it approved). Experiencing Jesus and his hard sayings, we Catholics are not walking away from him, but taking him at his word, every word.
We do not regard that analytical thinking about the appetibility of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a sign that our analytical thinking has ceased. We instead look at our Lord and his Father as the only place we find words of eternal life, and we think analytically about him and all the trees in the garden that are for us to eat. We do understand the tree of knowledge of good and evil, but do not entertain it as a possibility, we do not wonder who is telling us the truth, Satan or God. We do not set ourselves up as judges that can resolve their two assertions as a matter of logic. We trust one and reject the other because the one told us to reject the other.
John Martin
N
nmgauss
Guest
“Appetibility” is a new word for my vocabulary.
Your statement that the Scriptures are the creation of the Church is, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, not accurate. The Gospels were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John before the Church accepted them as Scripture over 200 years later. St. Paul was instrumental in enhancing the spread of Christianity and his epistles document his efforts. But even in the time of St. Paul, there was no Church. Indeed, the Catholic Bible was not accepted as Scripture until Roman Emperor Constantine ordered the convening of the Council of Nicaea in the 4th century to gather writings of the day upon which to create a Nicene Creed, which became the basic doctrine for a Catholic Church for the entire Roman Empire. Prior to that, bishops throughout the empire were interpreting Jesus in different ways and preaching various doctrines, several of which were vehemently thrown out. Even the Gospel of Thomas was rejected. Constantine wanted a uniform religion for the whole empire so that it would be regarded as Roman Catholic. Prior to that there was no Catholic Church, only various somewhat different Christian churches, often at odds with each other.
- Status