No Denominations?

[CopticChristian]

That’s why I like to say that, in science, there are no authorities. Only experts.

I do not have faith in that council. I also do not believe that the Bible is a perfect document. My faith is somewhat different than yours.

If faith were a good way to ensure certainty, why is faith so different among different people?

Brandon,

Define for me what it is you are talking about when you use the word faith.

I do not have faith in that council. What does this mean? I do not believe that the Bible is a perfect document and then you follow with, my faith is different. You then ask why is faith different among different people.

Define for me what the word faith means to you.

 

[CopticChristian]

I am concerned about the same thing, more-so after interacting with people here. I need time to revise and hopefully to improve my ideas. I have become somewhat interested in the work of Pierre Gassendi, and his attempts to unite atomism with Catholic theology.

I will take your advice seriously, but as far as I understand the Catholic Church, I could not come to believe it. There are fundamental disagreements between myself and the Catholic faith, in both belief and methodology.

But, in the spirit of my own uncertainty, who knows? Nothing can be completely disregarded or removed from the table.

So, to you and to others following the thread, I’ll be back soon, with new and better ideas.

Brandon,

It appears that you are a student of thought. Gassendi has some notions that at this point are outdated and to study and retrieve this information may be an aid to understanding Gassendi but not what is known about thought…

he maintains his maxim “that there is nothing in the intellect which has not been in the senses” (nihil est in intellectu quod non prius fuerit in sensu), but he contends that the imaginative faculty (phantasia) is the counterpart of sense, because it involves material images, and therefore is intrinsically material, and that it is essentially the same both in men and brutes. However, he also admits that the classic qualifier of humanity, intellect, which he affirms as immaterial and immortal, comes to an understanding of notions and truths that no effort of sensation or imagination could have attained (Op. ii. 383). He illustrates the capacity to form “general notions”; the conception of universality (ib. 384), which he says brutes never are able to partake in, though they utilize phantasia as truly as men; the notion of God, whom he says we may imagine as corporeal, but understand as incorporeal; and lastly, the reflex by which the mind makes the phenomena and operations within it the objects of its attention.

You may want to study General Semantics, Alfred Korsybski…S.I. Hiyakaw…

I suggest you take a look at NLP, Psychcybernetics, and Neurosemantics.

I suggest you take a look at Baumiester, the Willpower and you will discover that Gassendit is passe…and not up to date…

we know and understand more…you will discover that you can enhance your understanding of the world and your understanding of beliefs by understanding that what you are talking about is your map of the world or your beliefs. You will discover that these beliefs filter the information you absorb…you will discover that your imagination is something that is so valuable in understanding and you will then discover that you can exercise your imagination to solve problems…this is called “creative visualization”…I am not touting this as how it is presented however just the notion that you have a brain with a mechanism to solve problems that uses the imagination and that operates a certain way will take you well beyond Gassendi…study NLP and then Neurosemantics to understand that within your mind there are levels of understanding related to the maps you form…etc…

When you have a handle on this you will probably reformulate your notion of post-denominational etc…

Gassendi is like spending time with those who believed we could fly when Rockets, Satellites and space stations are what is happening…

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Define for me what it is you are talking about when you use the word faith.

Faith is strong religious intuition. Some claim that it is more, or that there is certainty involved with it.

To those people, I ask. If faith provides certainty, why are there so many religions?

I do not have faith in that council. What does this mean?

I do not accept the Council of Trent. I read some of the documentation on the council, and it has not influenced my believes substantially.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

You may want to study General Semantics, Alfred Korsybski…S.I. Hiyakaw…

I suggest you take a look at NLP, Psychcybernetics, and Neurosemantics.

I suggest you take a look at Baumiester, the Willpower and you will discover that Gassendit is passe…and not up to date…

Gassendi is like spending time with those who believed we could fly when Rockets, Satellites and space stations are what is happening…

I will definitely read up on the newer scholarship (time permitting). I am in many ways stuck in the past, philosophically speaking. Thank you for the vocabulary, and the names and resources.

I still have a fondness for Gassendi, because he wants to unify atomism with Christianity, and I have a strong intuitive sense that both are true, that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead, and that everything is made up of atoms.

There is a professor at St. Andrews University working on the physics of invisibility. He is inspired by stories in the Arabian Nights.

Maybe I am inspired by Gassendi, for the same reasons? After all, the stories of magic carpets connected to a grand human vision. Applying unrelenting scientific rigor and the humble acknowledgement of reality has allowed us to realize this vision.

We can fly now! That amazes me!

 

[Publisher]

Faith is strong religious intuition. Some claim that it is more, or that there is certainty involved with it.

To those people, I ask. If faith provides certainty, why are there so many religions?

I do not accept the Council of Trent. I read some of the documentation on the council, and it has not influenced my believes substantially.

Faith is how we order our lives…we have faith that come what may there is One in control of all things…even when our world is “going to hell in a hand basket”…faith tells me, we are loved…we are in Good Hands…faith tells me how I must live…even though when my circumstances tell me otherwise.

 

[mackbrislawn]

]That’s why I like to say that, in science, there are no authorities. Only experts.

I agree.

I do not have faith in that council. I also do not believe that the Bible is a perfect document. My faith is somewhat different than yours.

If faith were a good way to ensure certainty, why is faith so different among different people?

Brandon, you have hit upon a curious paradox. It seems that the more uncertain a matter is, the more dogmatic about it you need to be. If a matter were certain, faith would not be needed. But because it is uncertain, the only way to settle the matter is through faith. And that is why faith is so different amont different people.

Some people place their faith in an infallible set of writings. I have no idea why. But they do. It is faith, and faith is certain.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Brandon, you have hit upon a curious paradox. It seems that the more uncertain a matter is, the more dogmatic about it you need to be. If a matter were certain, faith would not be needed. But because it is uncertain, the only way to settle the matter is through faith. And that is why faith is so different amont different people

Why not simply live with the uncertainty?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Why not simply live with the uncertainty?

Well, some do. They’re called agnostics.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Well, some do. They’re called agnostics.

Maybe this is what I actually am…

Time to think.

 

[Publisher]

Why not simply live with the uncertainty?

One claiming “certainty” is no more “certain” than those of us who are “uncertain” concerning spiritual things…those “certain” simply claim to be “certain”…I am not able to make that…“leap” and claim “certainty”…after all…it is the Eternal and Absolute we are discussing…every thing we know is based on “assumptions” and “experience”. We live in “holy uncertainty”…whether we accept it or not.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

One claiming “certainty” is no more “certain” than those of us who are “uncertain” concerning spiritual things…those “certain” simply claim to be “certain”…I am not able to make that…“leap” and claim “certainty”…after all…it is the Eternal and Absolute we are discussing…every thing we know is based on “assumptions” and “experience”. We live in “holy uncertainty”…whether we accept it or not.

I think that this is very well said! And if this is agnosticism, then I’m agnostic.

Rather, though, I think this is just part of authentically living out one’s faith in the real world.

Ratzinger described it in his Intro to Christianity in a similar way. He talked about how you hold onto the cross as beams of wood in a great and violent sea. You can only barely hold on, and there are no guarantees about how long you will last. There is always a struggle with uncertainty.

If I’m agnostic, then so is the Pope. It’s not bad company, especially on this forum.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think that this is very well said! And if this is agnosticism, then I’m agnostic.

Rather, though, I think this is just part of authentically living out one’s faith in the real world.

Ratzinger described it in his Intro to Christianity in a similar way. He talked about how you hold onto the cross as beams of wood in a great and violent sea. You can only barely hold on, and there are no guarantees about how long you will last. There is always a struggle with uncertainty.

If I’m agnostic, then so is the Pope. It’s not bad company, especially on this forum.

Yes, there are many things we are uncertain about, but we do them anyway. We don’t know how long we can hold on, but keep holding on anyway. Of course, the stronger the faith we have, the longer we will hold on before giving up. Like the story of the two frogs that fell in a cream can. One treaded for awhile, then gave up and drowned. The other for some reason, kept the faith, kept treading, and after awhile treaded up a lump of butter. It was able to climb on the butter and leap out. In that way, it can be truly said, the frog was saved by faith. In spite of uncertainty.

An atheist is certain there is no god; an agnostic is not certain.

 

[CopticChristian]

Faith is strong religious intuition. Some claim that it is more, or that there is certainty involved with it.

To those people, I ask. If faith provides certainty, why are there so many religions?

I do not accept the Council of Trent. I read some of the documentation on the council, and it has not influenced my believes substantially.

Brandon,

You may want to consider that what is happening is that we are all speaking different languages here. Faith and faith for me are two different things. If I speak to some Protestants Faith is trust. You say Faith is strong intuition. So my question for you would be help me understand what it is you mean by intuition. I would also ask what is the difference between intuitioin and strong intuition with examples.

I also ask you to tell me having read some of the documentation of Trent what you do not accept.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I am concerned about the same thing, more-so after interacting with people here. I need time to revise and hopefully to improve my ideas. I have become somewhat interested in the work of Pierre Gassendi, and his attempts to unite atomism with Catholic theology.

I will take your advice seriously, but as far as I understand the Catholic Church, I could not come to believe it. There are fundamental disagreements between myself and the Catholic faith, in both belief and methodology.

Take your time, take your time. Rome was not built in a day, and for the most part, crossing the Tiber takes more than a day, too.

But, when you’ve got the pieces of the puzzle of history together… well. That ought to spill the truth out for you right there. Even if it doesn’t seem to make sense.

After all, you believe in the Resurrection. And what is the best evidence for that? History. Not just the New Testament, but the fact that the Church existed not only today, or 1000 years ago, but not long after Christ rose. You can’t scientifically prove Christ rose. It’s not scientifically possible (as far as we know). But that Christianity exists, and that the Bible exists, and that they can be traced over 2000 years makes it difficult to believe anything else.

History can be powerful.

But, in the spirit of my own uncertainty, who knows? Nothing can be completely disregarded or removed from the table.

So, to you and to others following the thread, I’ll be back soon, with new and better ideas.

Okay, cool, man. As I say, take your time. Plumb the depths of history. It’s really fascinating stuff.

God bless, and good huntin’ to you.

 

[Khalid]

I will definitely read up on the newer scholarship (time permitting). I am in many ways stuck in the past, philosophically speaking. Thank you for the vocabulary, and the names and resources.

I still have a fondness for Gassendi, because he wants to unify atomism with Christianity, and I have a strong intuitive sense that both are true, that Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead, and that everything is made up of atoms.

There is a professor at St. Andrews University working on the physics of invisibility. He is inspired by stories in the Arabian Nights.

Maybe I am inspired by Gassendi, for the same reasons? After all, the stories of magic carpets connected to a grand human vision. Applying unrelenting scientific rigor and the humble acknowledgement of reality has allowed us to realize this vision.

To above poster: what does BR disagree with in the Canons of Trent? Maybe things like miracles, the Virgin Birth, etc.?
We can fly now! That amazes me!

Materialism and Religion in general, especially Christianity, are incompatible at the most fundamental level possible. If you can’t see this, I suggest you study what atomism is, starting with the Greeks (especially the pre-Socratics, Epicurus, Galen, and, if you wish to venture in to the fullest expression of it and the darkest roads which it inevitably leadeth down, the work of al-Ghazali [called *The Incoherence of the Philosophers] and, most especially, Ibn Rushd [Averroes]'s refutation of it [called *The Incoherence of ‘The Incoherence’]), and what Christianity is, starting with the Apologists (i.e. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and the Apostolic Fathers), and, again, the Greeks (the NT Luke and Acts).

If the Apostolic Fathers - let alone the Apostles themselves - did not understand the essence of Christianity, one must admit that the chance of your recovering of it (or of my, or anyone else’s) is as null and void as Anglican orders.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Yes, there are many things we are uncertain about, but we do them anyway. We don’t know how long we can hold on, but keep holding on anyway. Of course, the stronger the faith we have, the longer we will hold on before giving up. Like the story of the two frogs that fell in a cream can. One treaded for awhile, then gave up and drowned. The other for some reason, kept the faith, kept treading, and after awhile treaded up a lump of butter. It was able to climb on the butter and leap out. In that way, it can be truly said, the frog was saved by faith. In spite of uncertainty.

An atheist is certain there is no god; an agnostic is not certain.

So I am agnostic. I am uncertain. But I continue to tread anyway. Maybe there will be some butter in my future? Butter in the future is always good!

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Your quote, corrected for accuracy:

You say Faith is strong religious intuition. So my question for you would be help me understand what it is you mean by intuition. I would also ask what is the difference between intuition and strong intuition with examples.

Sure thing. I’m not going to provide strong definitions, because I don’t know how intuition works, but I can describe things and provide examples.

“Intuition” is this realisation (or believe that you have realised) some deep truth without sufficient evidence or argument for support. Sometimes people look at an equation and can say ‘this is correct!’ without seeing a proof. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. This is intuition. Often it involves taking lots of different experiences and lines of argument and synthesising them in an original way, without fully realising (yet) what you’ve done.

Intuition is “strong” or “weak” on the basis of how easy it is to give up, especially in light of new evidence. Kepler had a strong intuition that the planets moved in circular paths with ratios to each other the same as ratios for the Platonic solids. He was wrong, and even after seeing evidence after evidence of being wrong, and even after coming up with the correct alternative, that of elliptical motion, he still hung onto his idea of Platonic solids.

Weak intuition would be if Kepler saw the data, and almost instantly abandoned his ideas about the geometric solids, and tried to come up with another explanation.

The inclusion of “religious” into the definition is also important. If it’s not about a religious subject (God, Church, Angels, Demons, etc.), then it’s not faith, as I mean the word.

I also ask you to tell me having read some of the documentation of Trent what you do not accept.

The canon of Scripture. Many parts of the different sessions. Quite a few parts of the Seventh and Thirteenth Session, namely Canons 1, 4, 9, 10, 13 on General Sacraments, Canons 2, 3, 5 on Baptism, the whole of the idea about confirmation (I’ve never understood it, to be fair), and almost the entirety of Session 13, since I don’t accept the real presence… so, to boil it down to talking points, I reject Canon 1 in Session 13 on the Eucharist, and the canon of Scripture and the idea of Biblical inerrency,

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

Materialism and Religion in general, especially Christianity, are incompatible at the most fundamental level possible. If you can’t see this, I suggest you study what atomism is, starting with the Greeks (especially the pre-Socratics, Epicurus, Galen, and, if you wish to venture in to the fullest expression of it and the darkest roads which it inevitably leadeth down, the work of al-Ghazali [called *The Incoherence of the Philosophers

] and, most especially, Ibn Rushd [Averroes]'s refutation of it [called *The Incoherence of ‘The Incoherence’]), and what Christianity is, starting with the Apologists (i.e. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and the Apostolic Fathers), and, again, the Greeks (the NT Luke and Acts).

I’ll look into this. My favourite work, one of my favourites, is Lucretius ‘on the nature of things’

If the Apostolic Fathers - let alone the Apostles themselves - did not understand the essence of Christianity, one must admit that the chance of your recovering of it (or of my, or anyone else’s) is as null and void as Anglican orders.

I do consider it very unlikely that I am completely right, but I think I’m closest to being right, even out of the Apostles. They had the advantage of being close to Jesus. They had the disadvantage of being far from modern philosophy and more importantly, modern science.

But I could be wrong.

 

[CopticChristian]

Your quote, corrected for accuracy:

Sure thing. I’m not going to provide strong definitions, because I don’t know how intuition works, but I can describe things and provide examples.

“Intuition” is this realisation (or believe that you have realised) some deep truth without sufficient evidence or argument for support. Sometimes people look at an equation and can say ‘this is correct!’ without seeing a proof. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. This is intuition. Often it involves taking lots of different experiences and lines of argument and synthesising them in an original way, without fully realising (yet) what you’ve done.

Intuition is “strong” or “weak” on the basis of how easy it is to give up, especially in light of new evidence. Kepler had a strong intuition that the planets moved in circular paths with ratios to each other the same as ratios for the Platonic solids. He was wrong, and even after seeing evidence after evidence of being wrong, and even after coming up with the correct alternative, that of elliptical motion, he still hung onto his idea of Platonic solids.

Weak intuition would be if Kepler saw the data, and almost instantly abandoned his ideas about the geometric solids, and tried to come up with another explanation.

The inclusion of “religious” into the definition is also important. If it’s not about a religious subject (God, Church, Angels, Demons, etc.), then it’s not faith, as I mean the word.

The canon of Scripture. Many parts of the different sessions. Quite a few parts of the Seventh and Thirteenth Session, namely Canons 1, 4, 9, 10, 13 on General Sacraments, Canons 2, 3, 5 on Baptism, the whole of the idea about confirmation (I’ve never understood it, to be fair), and almost the entirety of Session 13, since I don’t accept the real presence… so, to boil it down to talking points, I reject Canon 1 in Session 13 on the Eucharist, and the canon of Scripture and the idea of Biblical inerrency,

Brandon,

You have designated yourself as a “post-denominational Christian” and based on this post and your initial post I suggest this. I realize you do not accept the Bible as innerrant however based on your definition of intuition I see this. In the letter to Hebrews Paul says this about Faith and then gives examples…

**1Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2For by it the men of old gained approval. **

  3By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. 4By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained the testimony that he was righteous, God testifying about his gifts, and through faith, though he is dead, he still speaks. 5By faith Enoch was taken up so that he would not see death; AND HE WAS NOT FOUND BECAUSE GOD TOOK HIM UP; for he obtained the witness that before his being taken up he was pleasing to God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. 7By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.

We hope for things and we are convicted of things we cannot see and in a sense that is intuitiion. Would you agree? You ,may find common language and dialogue with Christians when you reference this definition of Faith.

In consideration that you do not see the Bible as inerrant that would cause me to wonder why you are attending any Christian service. In consideration that you reject Trent that would cause me to wonder why you attend any Catholic service.

 

[Brandon_Rimmer_1]

We hope for things and we are convicted of things we cannot see and in a sense that is intuitiion. Would you agree? You ,may find common language and dialogue with Christians when you reference this definition of Faith.

This is good advice. The Hebrews definition, modified to specifically refer to objects of religion, would make a better definition.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen, insofar as these are religious things.”

After all, I believe atoms exist, and would not call this faith, and I also hope that Dundee United wins the cup, and this is also not faith.

In consideration that you do not see the Bible as inerrant that would cause me to wonder why you are attending any Christian service. In consideration that you reject Trent that would cause me to wonder why you attend any Catholic service.

Most people in two of the four church communities I am part of (Church of Scotland and Scottish Episcopal) do not think the Bible is inerrant. The University group (non-denominational) is split, probably 50/50 (although I haven’t done any statistics). The Catholic community strongly supports inerrancy (although not universally; quite a few of the Catholics there don’t accept it).

Why would inerrancy be important for going to Church? Why would Trent be important for going to Mass?

I go to Church on Sunday because of the community, because of the preaching, because of the singing, and because prayer, especially community prayer, helps me come intellectually and emotionally closer to relationship with God. Also, I want to serve others, and the Church helps in this.

I attend the Mass because it is a beautiful and unique ancient expression of the Christian faith, and because of the friends I have who also attend, that we can enjoy attending together.