If everyone agreed to it, and if everyone fulfilled its conditions, the world would be a paradise.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)quote:I guess then that the RCC is not a mainstream denomination? For this is certainly not the official RC doctrine, see CCC 839-848.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
quote:Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''. You're off the hook
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:I guess then that the RCC is not a mainstream denomination? For this is certainly not the official RC doctrine, see CCC 839-848.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
quote:How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
quote:I agree about Matthew 25.
Originally posted by Zealot en vacance:
The necessity of faith for salvation is hard to reconcile with what Jesus is reported as saying to the sheep and the goats in Matt 25. The 'sheep' are greeted as enjoying the Father's blessing, and respond by denying that they ever served Christ. It seems to me very likely that at least some of these saved people would not have had faith in Christ either. Salvation is in God's hands, and no human formulation limits His action, I would suggest.
quote:Which ones did you have in mind?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''.
quote:What does this mean, God HAS to punish us? Who makes him? What if he doesn't want to? I don't believe God is under any compulsion to punish.
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
quote:It seems to make sense to me that when the time for judgement comes, everyone will have to come face to face with God and choose whether or not they accept Him and His forgiveness, whether or not they knew Him in their lifetime. Rather like the end of The Last Battle where the children are surprised by some of the people who end up accepting Aslan, when they were previously fighting him.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
quote:To be honest, I'm not trying to pick a battle with middle-of-the-road protestants; my gripe is with the corporate doctrine of the protestant churches. I think that regardless of what most churchgoers (and ministers) believe, sola fide is still a foundational doctrine of the protestant movement. In my experience, the best that can be said of the credal statements of the protestant denominations is that they are largely silent on the fate of the unevangelized majority. They generally aren't condemning them (apart from the groups you mention), but at the same time they aren't explaining theologically how hope for the unevangelized fits with sola fide.
Originally posted by mdijon:
[...] but if you talk to someone more middle of the road, very few will argue that those not evangelised are heading to hell.
quote:Well, this is the position that CS Lewis took, and therefore has to be taken seriously
I think a more accurate mainstream position is that we don't know the details - and can't know how God will judge - and many me be saved who we don't expect - but that faith is a sure entry ticket.
But I've not seen this written down anywhere as official doctrine of any protestant denomination. I'd be very happy to wrong about this, if you know better.quote:This still appears to make God very partial. You can't have faith if you've never been exposed to anything to have faith in. So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
So having it equals salvation, not having it doesn't necessarily equal damnation - but it puts you at risk of it.
quote:If you believe that a person will be in a position to accept or reject God when he or she is in full possession of the facts, then you too are off the hook
Originally posted by Keren-Happuch:
quote:It seems to make sense to me that when the time for judgement comes, everyone will have to come face to face with God and choose whether or not they accept Him and His forgiveness, whether or not they knew Him in their lifetime. Rather like the end of The Last Battle where the children are surprised by some of the people who end up accepting Aslan, when they were previously fighting him.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:How does one choose forgiveness if one does not, for no fault of one's own, know that a choice is required? Suppose you don't that there is a God who offers forgiveness?
Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
My understanding for the position that not all are saved is that we must balence our Loving God with the Just God. A Just God HAS to punish us for our rebellion; but opens forgiveness to those who choose it.
Presumably if we get to look God in the eye, the time for `faith' will be over.
quote:It seems to me that the more fruitful way round to look at this is to make goodness, rather than salvation, the goal. That is, the whole point is God's will being done on earth as it is in heaven. This is what "salvation" really amounts to. This is what will save the world.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:This still appears to make God very partial. You can't have faith if you've never been exposed to anything to have faith in. So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
So having it equals salvation, not having it doesn't necessarily equal damnation - but it puts you at risk of it.
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
quote:Maybe he can't do any better than he has?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
sola fide is still a foundational doctrine of the protestant movement. In my experience, the best that can be said of the credal statements of the protestant denominations is that they are largely silent on the fate of the unevangelized majority. They generally aren't condemning them (apart from the groups you mention), but at the same time they aren't explaining theologically how hope for the unevangelized fits with sola fide.......So why should God be willing to put so many people in peril of their souls?
quote:Why not? My position is that for both the faithfull and the unfaithfull - we don't know, we do what we think is best - and we'll find out when we get there. God knows our hearts. Purgatory... Hell with optional salvation... the tree lies as it falls.... or absolutely bloody nothing. I'm prepared for the range of options.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
quote:[small tangent]Then I would prepare myself for a long (God-willing!) life of discomfort.[/small tangent]
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
quote:I submit that this depends on what you mean by `good'. I am saddened to say that the people I have met who have most impressed me with their selflessness and charity have not been Christians. Mostly they have been atheists. Your mileage may vary
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
[qb] [QUOTE]So having it equals salvation, not The real argument is whether this can happen without faith in God. It certainly seems as though people can be well disposed without having any faith in God. Christianity claims, however, that in the last analysis this is not really possible. I agree.
However, if `goodness' demands something more or different from selflessness and charity, then you might be right. What is your understanding of goodness that makes it contingent on faith in God?
quote:What CC said - define "good".
Originally posted by Freddy:
You can't really be good without faith in God.
quote:OK, there are certain questions, even quite deep questions, that I can comfortably live without knowing the answers to. The problem is that I can't plod along with a huge logical incongruity in my beliefs. Uncertainty, yes; illogicality, no. For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
Originally posted by professorkirke:
...at the end of the day I think 90% of my thoughts still end up in some form of "I just don't know." I think becoming okay with that answer is a HUGE step for many Christians...)
quote:I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
quote:It's at least strongly implied in every single act of evangelism.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
But I'm not aware that most mainstream Protestant denominations teach that. Mine doesn't.
quote:But `faith' is a weasle word, isn't it? The NT writers used it all the time, but pistis in Greek is just as weasely as `faith' in English. It can mean many different things, from (as you say) intellectual assent to the likelihood of certain propositions' being true, to the `blind unreasoning allegiance' of Kierkegaard. pistis will stand all these meanings, and more.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Nobody seems to want to define "faith" however, or even respond to my challenge to do so; maybe I used too many words in that post?
quote:That may be true, but I don't think it must necessarily be true. If the `good news' is ``If you believe in this you won't roast in Hell'' then yes. If the `good news' is ``All are saved -- you no longer have to live in fear and uncertainty'' then no.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's at least strongly implied in every single act of evangelism.
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I think you're right, if by the strict form of sola fide you mean, all those who don't come to conscious and visible faith in Christ before death are going to roast in hellfire for eternity.
But I'm not aware that most mainstream Protestant denominations teach that. Mine doesn't.
quote:I'd submit that the problem isn't just sola fide, then. The problem is hell. How can a wholely benevolent God condemn anyone to hell? If we deal with that, perhaps we can move on to subsets of humanity for which the unfairness is magnified....
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
....For me, accepting sola fide in its strict form means rejecting the idea that God is wholely benevolent. And vice versa. I just don't see how these two doctrines logically fit together -- one or other has to be wrong.
quote:I think that the Bible defines what "good" is. I would say that to be "good" is to live as Jesus taught.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:What CC said - define "good".
Originally posted by Freddy:
You can't really be good without faith in God.
quote:I agree. It just seems odd to assent to such a position, but also say that "goodness" is impossible without faith in God...
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I agree with CC that there does not seem to necessarily be a correlation between being "good" and being "Christian." My experience has also been that the kindest people are often non-Christian.
quote:Well, I have two reasons for not wanting to do that...
Originally posted by mdijon:
I'd submit that the problem isn't just sola fide, then. The problem is hell. How can a wholely benevolent God condemn anyone to hell? If we deal with that, perhaps we can move on to subsets of humanity for which the unfairness is magnified....
quote:Which is why mainstream Protestant denominations leave me so cold.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber
Sorry, IngoB -- I meant to say ``mainstream protestant denominations''. You're off the hook
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Grace.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If goodness were not possible without faith how would we ever arrive at the faith required to get goodness?
quote:Who told you that?
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
quote:The current thread on attraction to Judaism reminds me of where I think Christinity goes wrong on this point. Since its inception it has been a religion obsessed with personal salvation. That isn't why we're here. Our purpose is to do the will of God in the present moment for which we may hope for a place in the world to come.
Originally posted by Superslug
If we do this faith thing to be saved, we miss the point and are only doing this thing for selfish reasons. There is therefore a high chance that wanting to find the 'truth' about this is the ultimate catch 22.
quote:Fair enough. But it only avoids the problem I set out if grace is universal. Is it? How would we know?
Originally posted by Birdseye:
But since all humanity will fail to hit the ultimate mark of perfection, the only reason anyone will be saved is because of the sacrifice paid by Christ.
It is through GRACE that we are saved -not faith.
quote:I agree that it seems odd, but this is what the Bible teaches.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I agree. It just seems odd to assent to such a position, but also say that "goodness" is impossible without faith in God...
Originally posted by Freddy:
But I agree with CC that there does not seem to necessarily be a correlation between being "good" and being "Christian." My experience has also been that the kindest people are often non-Christian.
quote:The point is that salvation, not to mention the improvement of the planet, depend on the actual quality of every individual, and of all of us as a whole. It does not seem as though this depends on our faith in God. But I think, in the long run, that it actually does.
Matthew 6:33 Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
quote:Which ones don't? (I'm asking about official credal statements, not the views of individual churchgoers or ministers, which I accept can be quite different)
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:Who told you that?
But all mainstream denominations officially teach that if an individual does not have Christian faith, that individual will not be saved. End of story.
quote:I do! I do! Pick me!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
Nobody seems to want to define "faith" however, or even respond to my challenge to do so; maybe I used too many words in that post?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:I agree this is absolutely crucial.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
<snip> we need to decide what we mean by "faith"
quote:This reminds me of the verse:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
-- do we mean intellectual assent to a proposition or set of propositions (e.g. "God exists", "Jesus is Lord" etc.)?
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
-- Or something more profound and deeper, something that might even exist in a person who gives intellectual assent to none of the propositions usually mentioned in terms of "faith"?
quote:From what I read, "faith" is not merely intellectual assent but instead some type of transformation of the inner self into someone more like Christ.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—
(Ephesians 2:8, NIV)
quote:Can you give a specific example of a `good' act that is informed by a faith in good, and an example of an act carried out by an atheist which appears good, and yet is not, by the former standard?
Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that salvation, not to mention the improvement of the planet, depend on the actual quality of every individual, and of all of us as a whole. It does not seem as though this depends on our faith in God. But I think, in the long run, that it actually does.
quote:I wouldn't work for any company on the basis of the hope that I'd get paid. Why should I for God?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Our purpose is to do the will of God in the present moment for which we may hope for a place in the world to come.
quote:Because I enjoy being contrary sometimes, yes, for the sake of the argument, I'll take the position here that no faith => damnation.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
My original post was trying to get at the fact that to accept sola fide in its strict form (no faith => damnation), while holding to a belief in a wholely benevolent God, while at the same time knowing that there are many people to whom Christian faith (in any of its possible forms) is impossible, is to accept a logical inconsistency.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Good actions are good actions whether they are done by a Christian or an atheist. If I'm looking for a good lawyer I don't give a rat's tap what the guy believes.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Can you give a specific example of a `good' act that is informed by a faith in good, and an example of an act carried out by an atheist which appears good, and yet is not, by the former standard?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:No. Almost everyone on earth believes in God.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Doesn't your formulation leave a helluva lot of people (about 60% of the world's population) incapable of doing real `good'?
quote:I never said it was all-or-nothing. There are many many factors. Belief in God is only one. Sincerity is another. The atheistic ethical humanist can do all kinds of good things, and do them better than a Christian. What is going on in his heart is his own business. Everyone plays their onw part in reforming the world.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I find extremely disturbing the notion that an ethical humanist could devote his whole life to doing good works, and indeed do things that appear to be good acts in the eyes of the huge majority of people in the world, and who nevertheless has done nothing good at all because his state of mind was wrong.
quote:I confess I've not entered the world of work yet, nor am I likely to do so within the next few years, but surely this is exactly what you DO do. You don't get paid before you do the job, but rather you do your job, assuming that you'll be paid in full for the work you've done. The difference with Christianity is that we already have a down-payment, a deposit, guaranteeing our inheritance. (see Ephesians 1:13-14, for example.)
I wouldn't work for any company on the basis of the hope that I'd get paid. Why should I for God?
quote:Except I have a contract with my employer, which we have both signed, stating the work I must do for them and the salary they must pay me. This contract is fully legal, and if they just refused to pay me one month I could get the money that is rightfully mine through the courts.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
I confess I've not entered the world of work yet, nor am I likely to do so within the next few years, but surely this is exactly what you DO do. You don't get paid before you do the job, but rather you do your job, assuming that you'll be paid in full for the work you've done.
quote:And this is why the Bible is called a "Testament" or "Covenant." It is something you can agree to or not.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Except I have a contract with my employer, which we have both signed, stating the work I must do for them and the salary they must pay me. This contract is fully legal, and if they just refused to pay me one month I could get the money that is rightfully mine through the courts.
quote:With the greatest respect, I just don't see how that works out. I don't see any way that you can define `faith' makes makes that a valid proposition. Earlier you said:
no faith = one will be cruel, one will be arrogant, unjust...will continue pursue a kingdom of darkness rather than light _____ [fill in the blank]
not righteous => pain & suffering
quote:Sure, you can agree to it. Problem is, there's no guarantee of remuneration for holding up your end of the deal.
Originally posted by Freddy:
And this is why the Bible is called a "Testament" or "Covenant." It is something you can agree to or not.
quote:I guess it would depend on which parts of the Bible most people followed...
If everyone agreed to it, and if everyone fulfilled its conditions, the world would be a paradise.
quote:Belief/faith in God is tied up with goodness because I think that it is hard to work your whole life, not for personal agrandisement, but from a genuine love of humanity, from an agnostic humanist perspective. I'm not saying that there are not plenty who do this. I'm just saying that the odds are not as good.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If a righteous, agnostic humanist does good works his whole life, not for personal agrandisement but from a genuine love of humanity, then I think you would class this as `good'. That seems to be the impression I get. But he wouldn't be doing it out of faith in anything, except perhaps faith in the validity of his humanist notions.
So why does belief/faith in God tied up with goodness?
quote:Yeah, I don't have a problem with saying that a lot of athiests, non-Christians, who-knows-what-have-you are people of great faith. I, personally, have been inspired by a lot of Muslims and their devotion and desire for purity has spurred my faith. I've also learned a great from a few athiests as well. I don't think you need to be a christian in order to have "faith."
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
You seem to be equating `following Christ' with `loving mercy', `acting justly', and so on. But the people I know who best exemplify those virtues are not Christians.
quote:Again, it goes back to what Mousethief was pointing out - what is "faith"? It all depends on how you define faith, I guess.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
To say that a person with no faith will be `cruel, arrogant, and just' doesn't make any sense to me. At least, it doesn't fit my observation.
quote:Yes, that is what I see the Scriptures teach us. At least, that is what I see looking at Amos, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, the Psalms...in fact, now that I think about it...most of our scriptures. i.e. "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8, NIV)
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Perhaps if your definition of `faith' includes people who are `following Christ' but don't know it (by being merciful, loving, etc) then I can buy that.
quote:Eh, well, take a look at hebrews 11, I believe, the classic "Wall of Faith" it all about collection of characters who did crazy things - none of it mentions assenting to some doctrine - it seems to me that looking at that list of crazy people - faith is about living in the promise of God and loving people.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But that's not the definition of `faith' that most Christians use
quote:Yes it is good to "seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" and we are all in a journey of life and hopefully moving some degrees forward to allowing God to illuminate our lives to transform us more into his likeness.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I suspect. That's just `being a good person', isn't it?
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:I think this is a very important point, Mousethief. And I think it's a point on which the majority of Christians has it wrong, and to their own spiritual detriment. For most Christians would think of the latter, not of the former. However, first this "special faith" is ill defined. "Profound and deep" in whose eyes, measured with regards to what, being demonstrated how? The definition is according to what it is not, not according to what it is. That makes it intangible, remote, in the end a mere opinion. Therfore it follows second that one cannot rest in such a faith. How can I ever know that I've finally got "it"? Maybe my faith is false, not deep and profound enough? How do I even know that I have faith at all? Maybe I'm just hunting illusions, maybe I'm driving myself into ever deeper delusions. This sort of faith can by definition never be rock-solid, because it is purely experiential and requires constant affirmation. Take somebody out of a group which affirms their experience of such faith, or for that matter, turn that group against somebody's experience of faith - how easily that person's former certainty vanishes, like mist in the sun.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I think before we can answer any of the very important questions that this thread has raised, we need to decide what we mean by "faith" -- do we mean intellectual assent to a proposition or set of propositions (e.g. "God exists", "Jesus is Lord" etc.)? Or something more profound and deeper, something that might even exist in a person who gives intellectual assent to none of the propositions usually mentioned in terms of "faith"?
quote:Isn't grace a means by which we are granted goodness? When I first say Jesus is Lord, that is by grace... but the grace does not work passively through a completely evil, misguided mind... moving my lips and thoughts by another power.... I am granted the goodness to be able to say "Jesus is Lord" in the first place.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Grace.
Originally posted by mdijon:
If goodness were not possible without faith how would we ever arrive at the faith required to get goodness?
quote:I whole-heartedly disagree!
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. We've already had 30-odd pages on [hell], and not got anywhere
quote:I completely believe you, CC. No need to be worried. The confusion arose from-
I have no problem with not knowing the answers to deep questions.
quote:But I think it's cleared up now.
Saying ``we don't know'' or ``we don't presume to understand how God figures these things out'' is at least an honest position to take. But it's not one I feel comfortable with.
quote:No, this sort of faith can by definition never be rock-solid because being rock-solid would not be faith. We long for solid certainty, but I don't think it is something we are blessed with in this life. That, to me, is the whole point of faith. Believing and acting on things when you aren't sure. Which is a variation of what you said later in the post, but which I think contradicts your problem stated above.
Originally posted by IngoB:
How do I even know that I have faith at all? Maybe I'm just hunting illusions, maybe I'm driving myself into ever deeper delusions. This sort of faith can by definition never be rock-solid, because it is purely experiential and requires constant affirmation.
quote:Please re-read what I wrote. You are confusing the intensity and solidity of the personal assent with its cognitive status and its general acceptability. For example, one can be unshakably convinced that Christ is God without knowing much about Christology and without being able to convince others of this by reasonable argument. A good many martyrs weren't scholars or rhetoricians. They did not see clearly, not even nearly as clear as possible for humans in this life, nevertheless their assent did not fail even unto death. If that is not rock-solid faith, then I want to know what is "rock-solid"?
Originally posted by professorkirke:
No, this sort of faith can by definition never be rock-solid because being rock-solid would not be faith.
quote:Beautifully put. I think that it is a universal principle that love or goodness always precedes faith or truth. This is just what I mean by grace.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am granted the goodness to be able to say "Jesus is Lord" in the first place.
quote:I see what you mean and I don't really disagree. But Jesus said:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not saying, of course, that one shouldn't study and be knowledgable. And if true knowledge contradicts faith, then that faith has to be abandoned - for seeing clearly forces one's assent. But knowledge limits the realm of faith, rather than determining its strength.
quote:And also:
John 18:37 "For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.”
quote:These ideas, as well as His being "the Light" and "the Word", seem to place knowledge in an almost salvific role. In striking contrast to the knowledge meant by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden!
John 8:31-33 “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
quote:OK. I can see what you're getting at -- it's just that you use the word `faith' in a completely different way to me.
Originally posted by JoyfulSoul:
Yeah, I don't have a problem with saying that a lot of athiests, non-Christians, who-knows-what-have-you are people of great faith. I, personally, have been inspired by a lot of Muslims and their devotion and desire for purity has spurred my faith. I've also learned a great from a few athiests as well. I don't think you need to be a christian in order to have "faith."
quote:When I was an atheist, my faith was all in me. It's so much less stressful these days.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I always though that to have `faith' you have to have faith in something or someone. I've never used the word `faith' in a sort of free-floating sense. You suggest that atheists can have `faith', but presumably they don't have faith _in_ somebody or something.
quote:Sorry, by `not got anywhere' I meant that we had not achieved consensus
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:I whole-heartedly disagree!
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. We've already had 30-odd pages on [hell], and not got anywhere
I didn't mean that it was a fruitless discussion. Of course, expecting consensus on such a subject is asking a bit much
quote:Faith is being sure of what we all hope for; it is becoming the evidence of what none of us can see.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:OK. I can see what you're getting at -- it's just that you use the word `faith' in a completely different way to me.
Originally posted by JoyfulSoul:
Yeah, I don't have a problem with saying that a lot of athiests, non-Christians, who-knows-what-have-you are people of great faith. I, personally, have been inspired by a lot of Muslims and their devotion and desire for purity has spurred my faith. I've also learned a great from a few athiests as well. I don't think you need to be a christian in order to have "faith."
I always though that to have `faith' you have to have faith in something or someone. I've never used the word `faith' in a sort of free-floating sense. You suggest that atheists can have `faith', but presumably they don't have faith _in_ somebody or something.
Aren't you just using the word faith to me ``a committment to leading a loving and selfless life'' or something? I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- just that I always understood faith to have a specific object.
quote:Amen!
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Of course, expecting consensus on such a subject is asking a bit much
quote:I think first we have to distinguish between Divine knowledge and human knowledge (and if you want, angelic knowledge...). Whatever we may conclude about human knowledge does not change that God's knowledge can only be "helpful", never "limiting" (in whatever analogous sense we may mean that). As for humans, I think the crucial point is what our knowledge is ordered to. If it becomes "knowledge for knowledge's sake" it hinders us (in regards to religion now, in fundamental science this is the ideal modus operandi!). If it is "knowledge for God's sake" it doesn't. For example, a biblical scholar may be the world's foremost authority on scripture without being as "saved" as his gardener, who is barely literate. Of course, if that scholar was to find faith, his knowledge would be of enormous benefit to him, and perhaps more so, to others. But as it is it remains "dead", since it is ordered to itself (to being knowledgable about scripture) not to God. Given the difference in personal mental ability, education and environment, I do not think that we should assign to human knowledge a salvific nature per se. Rather, God is Truth and His Truth indeed sets us free. Whether His Truth is expressed in us as "faith" or "knowledge" does not matter, as long as it is expressed. I reject both elitist extremes as sine qua non: neither perfect theological knowledge nor perfectly "blind" faith must be achieved to draw close to God.
Originally posted by Freddy:
There must be two kinds of knowledge. Or two senses in which knowledge can be helpful or limiting.
quote:I explicitly delivered a definition, namely St Augustine's statement, which I support. I explicitly rejected another definition which you may, or may not, have hinted at. It was not my intention to assign either to you as your opinion. As for Joyfulsoul's "definition", frankly, I think she solves the issue by conceptual overloading. Sure, if I assign the entire life of the righteous before God to mean "faith", then I can rest assured that not a single bit of faith has escaped my definition. The price to pay is however that I then do not know more and cannot say more than before that definition.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
IngoB, if I didn't know better, I'd think you took my brief description of a non-propositional "faith" to be a definition. That would be blind folly. I was calling for a definition, not proposing one with that post. I'm not sure I could come up with a definition that was both big and small enough. But something along the lines of what Joyfulsoul has said seems to be the right direction to take.
quote:I am reading an interesting book by James Alison, THE JOY OF BEING WRONG. A whimsical title to a serious book on original sin in light of the resurrection. He speaks to this question and I can't pretend to be able to explain all the nuanced points he makes, but I agree with this: The resurrected Jesus is at one and the same time the Victim who was slain and the First Born from the dead. Knowledge of the resurrection and the experience of the risen Lord gave the disciples a framework or context to intrepret all of Jesus' teachings and actions, and to present them as witness not just to God's power, but to a profoundly different way of being. Alison talks about the parable of the sheep and goats, and makes the point that the parable is not a prescription for particular behaviour, but rather it is about a way of seeing the the eyes of the victims, and achieving compassion for the other, rather than the natural human perspective that builds self (and group) identity over against the other. Seeing thru the eyes of the victim, the sheep respond with compassion without the knowledge that the victim is the "least of [the Lord's] brothers." The goats, on the other hand, mired in their culture of victimization and exclusion simply DON'T SEE the victim. They could never identify the victim with the Lord, because the victim is invisible to them. This is a paradigm of the Kingdom of God, and the parables of the great banquet and Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount explicate this.
Originally posted by Freddy:
These ideas, as well as His being "the Light" and "the Word", seem to place knowledge in an almost salvific role. In striking contrast to the knowledge meant by the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Garden of Eden!
There must be two kinds of knowledge. Or two senses in which knowledge can be helpful or limiting.
quote:Thank you for articulating something I've been trying to articulate for some time but have yet been unable to.
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Because I enjoy being contrary sometimes, yes, for the sake of the argument, I'll take the position here that no faith => damnation.
Basically, it depends how you define "faith" - which is what Mousethief was trying to point out.
I'm summarising my previous post on this thread (if you would so kind to give it a glance for further illustration):
Conclusion: Faith through grace = righteous by God
Why?
1. faith = obedience to God's will
2. God's will = acting justly, loving mercy, walking humbly
3. Acting justly, loving mercy, walking humble = Christ
4. Christ = salvation
or
no faith = one will be cruel, one will be arrogant, unjust...will continue pursue a kingdom of darkness rather than light _____ [fill in the blank]
not righteous => pain & suffering
quote:I really can relate to that a whole lot. I haven't seen God and I've never heard his voice or really seen any angelic visitations or seen any supernatural miracle. It really hard to declare with 100% certainty - "oh, YES, God is just so REAL! I BELIEVE, I have faith!" when God is silent, invisible, and intangible and described in books that written in some other language over 1000s of years ago.
Originally posted by Gort:
The subject of faith was a great stumbling block for me because of its religous connotations. The whole notion of "belief in the unseen" (and some of the other references here for the term) was a serious hangup.
quote:Exactly. I don't see God, I can't hear God but my faith is about living my life like God exists - like he loves and cares about people and that his primary purpose is the transformation of the inner being into something grander and illuminated. like what Jesus said about bringing us into an "abundant life."
Originally posted by Gort:
Now I see it as a process representing just one of the steps in any creative act. It's more fundamental to the existence of things than I first realized.
For me it represents the force that gives life to stages of creation as symbolized by one view of the trinity. Complete conviction in creative law doesn't require objective support for the results to be realized, but those results can certainly reinforce inner conviction. I can testify that the "bootstrap" method does indeed work.
quote:I guess what I've learned or discovered is that faith is not merely assent something or someone - but rather -- faith is life (= is obedience to God's will).
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I always though that to have `faith' you have to have faith in something or someone. I've never used the word `faith' in a sort of free-floating sense. You suggest that atheists can have `faith', but presumably they don't have faith _in_ somebody or something.
quote:It does seem to me that here there is emphasis mere declaration of a faith is insufficient and rather that real faith is perhaps can be understood as living your life in accordance with the will of God our Father.
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Aren't you just using the word faith to me ``a committment to leading a loving and selfless life'' or something? I'm not saying that's a bad thing -- just that I always understood faith to have a specific object.
quote:Exactly. You put it so concisely!
Originally posted by professorkirke:
Faith is being sure of what we all hope for; it is becoming the evidence of what none of us can see.
I think Joyful's claims speak to a larger truth, where religious labels and even doctrines are all at best pointers toward a Truth that we don't ever really grasp here. If I say I believe in God, and make speeches about belief in God, and write a book about why people should believe in God, and yet I do not act like I believe in God (whatever that may mean precisely), what does that say about my belief? So then, with the opposite alternative, perhaps...
-Digory
quote:I agree that this sums it up very well. The bottom line is that you can't separate faith and living a life of love and charity. Like this quote from one of my demonination's books:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I guess what I've learned or discovered is that faith is not merely assent something or someone - but rather -- faith is life (= is obedience to God's will).
....
It does seem to me that here there is emphasis mere declaration of a faith is insufficient and rather that real faith is perhaps can be understood as living your life in accordance with the will of God our Father.
....
So, from what I gather from the bible -- faith is being obedient to God and obedient to God means growing and living in love (i.e. the two most important commandments: Love the Lord your God and love your neighbor as yourself). And so living a life with love and growing in that love and allowing God to work a transformation in our own inner soul and "faith" go hand in hand.
quote:As I see it, the insistence that these two elements can't really exist without the other is very helpful in understanding how salvation works.
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity, and faith devoid of charity is not faith. For charity to be real, faith must be present; and for faith to be real, charity must be present.
quote:What is it then?
Originally posted by Freddy (quoting a book):
quote:
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity,
quote:It's charity, just not genuine. A person can be kind for self-centered reasons, and the kindness would then be not genuine.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:What is it then?
Originally posted by Freddy (quoting a book):
quote:
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity,
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
The bottom line is that you can't separate faith and living a life of love and charity. Like this quote from one of my demonination's books:
quote:
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity, and faith devoid of charity is not faith. For charity to be real, faith must be present; and for faith to be real, charity must be present.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:You may have just helped me settle in my mind the usual meaning of the word "charity."
Originally posted by OliviaG:
That quote will definitely remain in my memory as one of the most insulting things I've ever read on the Internet. OliviaG
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Similarly, works without faith is lacking.
James 2.17 "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works...
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:I think I used the wrong word. Perhaps demoralizing would have been better. However, if by "faith", you mean specifically the Christian faith, then that quote above might be upsetting to non-Christians. I wouldn't want to get into an argument about whether e.g. Mohandas Gandhi's lack of faith diminished the value of his works.
Originally posted by Freddy:
Similarly, works without faith is lacking.
Not meaning to be insulting.
quote:I agree with you that "it is hard". Based my own observations, I would also agree that "the odds are not as good". But "works without faith is lacking" dismisses anyone who is trying hard to buck those odds.
Belief/faith in God is tied up with goodness because I think that it is hard to work your whole life, not for personal agrandisement, but from a genuine love of humanity, from an agnostic humanist perspective. I'm not saying that there are not plenty who do this. I'm just saying that the odds are not as good.
quote:Olivia, Good point. I guess that this a pretty classic difficulty in Christianity. I'm thinking of faith as trust in God, however a person conceives of Him. Not specifically the Christian God.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I agree with you that "it is hard". Based my own observations, I would also agree that "the odds are not as good". But "works without faith is lacking" dismisses anyone who is trying hard to buck those odds.
quote:I guess ``works without faith is lacking'' can make sense and be non-insulting if `faith' is interpreted in a particular way. For example, if you read `faith in God' as `a recgnition of the implicit and transcendent value of all human life' then even an atheist can have `faith'. I must confess that when I started this thread, it was on the assumption that Christians read `faith' as `acceptance of the Christian doctrine', which I now understand is not the way at least some Christians mean it.
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:Olivia, Good point. I guess that this a pretty classic difficulty in Christianity. I'm thinking of faith as trust in God, however a person conceives of Him. Not specifically the Christian God.
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I agree with you that "it is hard". Based my own observations, I would also agree that "the odds are not as good". But "works without faith is lacking" dismisses anyone who is trying hard to buck those odds.
quote:I guess the basic idea is that "For God so loved the world" and so if we share in God's love for the world - it pleases God and we are known by God (book of 1 John). So, aren't the ethical humanists following God's commands love our neighbors as ourselves?
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I suppose it can be argued that if you work for the public good, not out of selfish motives but from a genuine love of humanity, then your charity stems from trust in God, even though you don't know it. However, I'm not sure that an ethical humanist would go along with this
quote:Yes, very possibly; but an athestic humanist wouldn't see it that way. If you categorically reject the existence of God, you aren't going to accept that you are serving God without knowing it
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
I guess the basic idea is that "For God so loved the world" and so if we share in God's love for the world - it pleases God and we are known by God (book of 1 John). So, aren't the ethical humanists following God's commands love our neighbors as ourselves?
quote:Surely, in terms of Salvation, the only thing that matters is whether God accepts it as such
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If you categorically reject the existence of God, you aren't going to accept that you are serving God without knowing it
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Amen, sir. Aaaaaaa-men.
Originally posted by mdijon:
One may wish to very rapidly, retrospecitively accept it in certain after-life scenarios one could imagine....
) is something created by an act of human will put into action; that is we make the kingdom by our actions, we build it by the sweat of our brow and our puissance. quote:Welcome Bester! Very nice thought.
Originally posted by Bester:
So, if salvation is through some combination of the two, or some broader definition of 'faith', where does this lie? I can't find any answer to that question- perhaps that is an indication that it can only be answered by God in each individual case, and that no generic 'do this and you're saved, don't and you're not' rule will fit all cases?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote:What about none of the above? The kingdom isn't "just there" -- we are its building stones; the master builder is Christ. It's a work in progress, and part of how it progresses is when we feed the poor, etc.
Originally posted by Teapot:
I wonder how much of the faith/works argument boils down to whether we think the kingdom (for us Christians here
Or, otherly, whether we think the kingdom is already there, waiting for us and that we simply need to accept it.
quote:Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. - Matt 4:17
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:What about none of the above? The kingdom isn't "just there" -- we are its building stones; the master builder is Christ. It's a work in progress, and part of how it progresses is when we feed the poor, etc.
Originally posted by Teapot:
I wonder how much of the faith/works argument boils down to whether we think the kingdom (for us Christians here
Or, otherly, whether we think the kingdom is already there, waiting for us and that we simply need to accept it.
quote:Well, I've got no problem with the "love your neighbour" part. It makes sense, even though I fail to live up to it pretty much every minute (every second?) of my life. I can see why following it would make for a better world.
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that the bottom line is always that loving God and loving the neighbor are the two things that support all of "the Law and the Prophets." These are the loves that make up heaven - and they must therefore be the basis for being able to be there. Isn't this what Jesus taught?
quote:I take the "loving God" to imply that you're a happier person if you accept your lot in life, rather than always striving to get ahead.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the "love God" bit I have trouble with.
quote:I agree. But the question that then bothers me is 'is it possible to love God without believing He exists?' I am tempted to say yes; after all God is surely far more than a mere intellectual fact and someone who rejects the intellectual fact may yet belive strongly in Goodness or Truth or Justice. I have an atheist friend who strongly agrees with the majority of Jesus' moral teachings and is considerably better than many Christians at living by them (myself included) but cannot accept that there is a God. Does he love God through loving God's ways?
Originally posted by Freddy:
It seems to me that the bottom line is always that loving God and loving the neighbor are the two things that support all of "the Law and the Prophets." These are the loves that make up heaven - and they must therefore be the basis for being able to be there. Isn't this what Jesus taught?
quote:Normally, if you dig deep enough you can find some reason for most meaningless dogma. In this case the dogma has probably moved so far from the original meaning through changes in the meaning of 'love' and 'god' that it is a totally different animal to how it was first intended.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sort of like a theological "keep your head down and get on with it"?
quote:Probably "obey". Most people who tell me to "love God" tend to mean I should do whatever they think He's telling me to do...
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
In this case the dogma has probably moved so far from the original meaning through changes in the meaning of 'love' and 'god' that it is a totally different animal to how it was first intended.
quote:Or it could simply mean "hold as precious" and thus "be in accord with what he teaches"
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Probably "obey". Most people who tell me to "love God" tend to mean I should do whatever they think He's telling me to do...
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
In this case the dogma has probably moved so far from the original meaning through changes in the meaning of 'love' and 'god' that it is a totally different animal to how it was first intended.
now lets get to the nitty gritty....do you love your neighbour?"
quote:In the post enlightenment world I don't think you can equate "believing in" with "holding as precious". We no longer live in a highly religious society, so it's time for a reinterpretation.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Or it could simply mean "hold as precious" and thus "be in accord with what he teaches"
quote:This is always the hard question.
Originally posted by Bester:
I have an atheist friend who strongly agrees with the majority of Jesus' moral teachings and is considerably better than many Christians at living by them (myself included) but cannot accept that there is a God. Does he love God through loving God's ways?
quote:Well....christians believe in the devil (discuss
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
In the post enlightenment world I don't think you can equate "believing in" with "holding as precious". We no longer live in a highly religious society, so it's time for a reinterpretation.
) but that does not mean they love him quote:Love of God must equate to arrogance in the Christian sense then.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Loving implies in many ways "intimately knowing" someone....
quote:Why?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Love of God must equate to arrogance in the Christian sense then.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Loving implies in many ways "intimately knowing" someone....
quote:How can anyone "intimately know" a deity?
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Love of God must equate to arrogance in the Christian sense then.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Loving implies in many ways "intimately knowing" someone....
quote:Erm, its called mysticism
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
How can anyone "intimately know" a deity?
Like with St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Catherine of Sienna, Julian of Norwich......not to mention pre-fall adam and eve who used to share garden promenades apparently quote:Exactly - arrogance. You have to believe that the mystics were onto something in order to see their way of thinking as intimate.
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:Erm, its called mysticism
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
How can anyone "intimately know" a deity?
quote:Not sure what you mean here....
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Exactly - arrogance. You have to believe that the mystics were onto something in order to see their way of thinking as intimate.
quote:This is kind of a weird exchange. SCZ I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:How can anyone "intimately know" a deity?
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Love of God must equate to arrogance in the Christian sense then.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Loving implies in many ways "intimately knowing" someone....
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:Not at all. Mysticism is a very personal thing, and is not very suited to broad claims of truth. The arrogance I spoke of was that of assuming you can know god in a way which falsifies others experiences of god. You seemed to imply that love of god stemmed from intimately experiencing him/it, which seems to leave a lot of christians bereft of loving god.
Originally posted by Teapot:
And are you suggesting mysticism is arrogant because it experiences the divine "up close and personal"?!
quote:What other ways are there to love, other than in "intimate knowing"? Frequently "intimate knowledge" is used as a cover term for all manner of "loving"....both sexual and otherwise.
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Not at all. Mysticism is a very personal thing, and is not very suited to broad claims of truth. The arrogance I spoke of was that of assuming you can know god in a way which falsifies others experiences of god. You seemed to imply that love of god stemmed from intimately experiencing him/it, which seems to leave a lot of christians bereft of loving god.
Originally posted by Teapot:
And are you suggesting mysticism is arrogant because it experiences the divine "up close and personal"?!
quote:Do you mean "believing in"? Erm, how is that Love?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
I already suggested a possible alternative meaning.
quote:I was trying to find your alternative meaning....if I did not find it could you please say what it is?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
eh?
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:I take the "loving God" to imply that you're a happier person if you accept your lot in life, rather than always striving to get ahead.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the "love God" bit I have trouble with.
quote:Aha! Sorry
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:I take the "loving God" to imply that you're a happier person if you accept your lot in life, rather than always striving to get ahead.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the "love God" bit I have trouble with.
quote:In order to love someone you sometimes have to forget about the things about them which annoy you. The same might apply to god, however you define god.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Could you say how you think that is "loving"?
quote:Dont you think loving requires embracing rather that tollerating?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:In order to love someone you sometimes have to forget about the things about them which annoy you. The same might apply to god, however you define god.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Could you say how you think that is "loving"?
Personally, god is not my neighbour. And he/it is does not have a quasi-human character.
quote:In the case of god - what the hell is someone supposed to embrace?
Originally posted by Teapot:
Dont you think loving requires embracing rather that tollerating?
quote:Well, how do you embrace:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:In the case of god - what the hell is someone supposed to embrace?
Originally posted by Teapot:
Dont you think loving requires embracing rather that tollerating?
quote:Lol no. I am giving examples of embracing a non-physical something
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
You seem to be talking about embracing human emotion. So god is simply a human emotion to you?
quote:OK - so let me ask again. In the case of god what the hell are you supposed to embrace?
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:Lol no. I am giving examples of embracing a non-physical something
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
You seem to be talking about embracing human emotion. So god is simply a human emotion to you?
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Godself. Which is probably an answer that leaves you all
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:OK - so let me ask again. In the case of god what the hell are you supposed to embrace?
Originally posted by Teapot:
quote:Lol no. I am giving examples of embracing a non-physical something
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
You seem to be talking about embracing human emotion. So god is simply a human emotion to you?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:So ...
Originally posted by Teapot:
I cant make you understand it by reason, you need to experience it through epiphany (which cannot be brought about by act of will, it can only be "allowed" to happen by yourself)
quote:Well the instruction tells us what we need to do...perhaps how we do it is the rest of the whole book?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Why then does Jesus suggest that we 'love God'? Surely he should be saying that we should 'love God if we've experienced epiphany'? In fact, I'd expect someone like Jesus to suggest how we might go about a compromise if we never come to experience epiphany. Strangely that condition doesn't seem to feature. Any idea why?
quote:I dont need evidence that I can in return show you, in order to believe in and love god. Personal experience is sufficient to the task for me and that is not transferable to you so I will not try
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Loving something which there is not just no empirical evidence for, and no convincing individual personal experience of, but also no coherent personal experiences of amongst even those who give their lives to it is near impossible.
But then, I'm guessing that loving god is pretty easy for someone who loves George Bush.
quote:Epiphany happens when we stop trying to do stuff....its a gift waiting for us to accept not something that happens on the whim of Jesus.
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Excellent. So, Jesus says I should love god. The proper christian tells me that in order to do that I have to experience 'epiphany', yet that there is no way we can experience that through choice. Therefore, either Jesus is being unreasonable in his expectations, or the writings of christianity present a strange and twisted cultish pact.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the proper christian is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Epiphany happens when we stop trying to do stuff....its a gift waiting for us to accept not something that happens on the whim of Jesus.
quote:Really - what's the difference?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
I take the "loving God" to imply that you're a happier person if you accept your lot in life, rather than always striving to get ahead.
quote:I'm saying you love god when you know him, as a result of epiphany you allow to happen. You are saying perhaps that the allowing itself is "loving".
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:
Originally posted by Teapot:
Epiphany happens when we stop trying to do stuff....its a gift waiting for us to accept not something that happens on the whim of Jesus.quote:Really - what's the difference?
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
I take the "loving God" to imply that you're a happier person if you accept your lot in life, rather than always striving to get ahead.
quote:I'm not sure why it is important about what these other people think.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Probably "obey". Most people who tell me to "love God" tend to mean I should do whatever they think He's telling me to do...
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
In this case the dogma has probably moved so far from the original meaning through changes in the meaning of 'love' and 'god' that it is a totally different animal to how it was first intended.
. I think the really smart people know how little they know... quote:Heh. I so agree with you. I often want to say to those who claim they know God but are extremely judgemental and demanding that are Right™ with a Capital R, "So, if you say you know God sososo well than why you are still so f*cked up?"
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Love of God must equate to arrogance in the Christian sense then.
Originally posted by Teapot:
Loving implies in many ways "intimately knowing" someone....
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
. Because I've noticed that its not the loud and noisy ones who are bragging how they are just sooosososoos close to God but it is usually the most kind and patient and loving and humble that actually have a better grasp of who God is. quote:Spot on.
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
Excellent. So, Jesus says I should love god. The proper christian tells me that in order to do that I have to experience 'epiphany', yet that there is no way we can experience that through choice. Therefore, either Jesus is being unreasonable in his expectations, or the writings of christianity present a strange and twisted cultish pact.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, the proper christian is wrong.
quote:Because for all I know they might be right. I mean, they seem so damn sure about it. And in the absence of any personal revelations from God, all I can do is go along with them or hope they're wrong...
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:I'm not sure why it is important about what these other people think.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Probably "obey". Most people who tell me to "love God" tend to mean I should do whatever they think He's telling me to do...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm impressed.
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
God doesn't want obedience.
Really? quote:Lovely phrase, but totally meaningless.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
the will of God.
quote:Forgive me, but your whole post seemed...erm...to be saying two different things. I don't think I took your comment "God doesn't want obedience" out of the context in which it was written when I quoted it. And as far as I can see the comments I made on it were reasonable...i.e. a view of yours with which I disagree, having read your post in its entirity. Obviously, feel free to argue your point.
I'm sorry if what I wrote became unclear and confusing but I stand firmly by my whole post.
quote:Hmm... It may be understood in different ways by different people, it may be subjective, it may have different implications for different people, it may not be easy to understand, it may be a cliche but meaningless it is not.
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Lovely phrase, but totally meaningless.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
the will of God.
quote:This is one way of viewing the question of obedience. However, Paul recommends that we "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12) This suggests, to me, that obedience is a process nearer to JoyfulSoul's
Obedience is an active choice on our part to submit to the will of God.
quote:Whether we agree or not that there is any single such thing as "the will of God" (as in something that is single, fixed from, as it were, the beginning of time, that it is "closed" rather than "open"), there is still the problem of determining what that will is. OK, in the broader sense we know some things about God's mind, but those priciples still need to be applied, and ISTM that this can only be determined in the context of relationship. Often, the conclusions we come to are little more than informed best guesses, hopefully illuminated by the Spirit, which we appropriate and make our own through faith. It's God who makes up the defecit.
ability to engage with love, hope, and transformation.
quote:Such as?
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, in the broader sense we know some things about God's mind
quote:No offence to anyone....but it reminds me of the crusaders battle cry of "God wills it!"
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
quote:Lovely phrase, but totally meaningless.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
the will of God.
quote:Such as, those things which Jesus revealed (maybe personified?) : that He thinks we should love one another, that we are all uniquely valuable from His (that is, God's) POV, and that we are loved personally by the creator - and a few other things.
Such as?
quote:That much was clear.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Maybe I wan't clear, or was too ready to result to jargon. When I wrote of "God's mind", I meant, "the things that are God's concerns vis-a-vis humanity", rather than the unsearchable mysteries of the interactions between the persons of the Trinity.
quote:Yes, really.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
quote:
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
God doesn't want obedience.
quote:haha. How on earth can I practise humility when I hear things like that?
Originally posted by professorkirke:
She was just humble enough not to argue it with you.
quote:Unsure how this proves your point, Digory.
"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
quote:Faith and obedience are not incompatible.
(Without faith it is impossible to please God, not obedience.)
quote:Me either. This quote is about obeying God, not about faith.
Originally posted by Wolfgang:
quote:Unsure how this proves your point, Digory.
"Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice."
quote:It seems to me the context is that Israel is being criticized for not being merciful and instead being immoral.
Hosea 6.4 “ O Ephraim, what shall I do to you?
O Judah, what shall I do to you?
For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud,
And like the early dew it goes away.
And your judgments are like light that goes forth.
6 For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
7 “ But like men they transgressed the covenant;
There they dealt treacherously with Me.
8 Gilead is a city of evildoers
And defiled with blood.
9 As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man,
So the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem;
Surely they commit lewdness.
10 I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel:
There is the harlotry of Ephraim;
Israel is defiled.
quote:Isn't Jesus here also calling on His listeners to change their behavior? He wants them to be merciful.
Matthew 9:12 When Jesus heard that, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”
Matthew 12:6 Yet I say to you that in this place there is One greater than the temple. 7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. 8 For the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
quote:I agree with you completely. The point is to have love. Love is the important thing. Everything happens according to the presence or absence of love.
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Freddy, what is your understanding on God's desire for our love vs. acts of faith?
quote:So clearly those of us that have not love may as well do what we damn well like, coz no amount of trying to please God is going to cut it. That's what that verse says to me...
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
But what really comes to mind is the Corinthians verse:
"if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."
quote:So are we thinking that having love is an all-or-nothing proposition? Can't you have just a little love, or more love?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So clearly those of us that have not love may as well do what we damn well like, coz no amount of trying to please God is going to cut it. That's what that verse says to me...
quote:you can do whatever the hell you want, Marvin the Martian. But I don't know if that will really make you happy. If you try it, let me know how it works. It didn't make me happy. Maybe you're different.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:So clearly those of us that have not love may as well do what we damn well like, coz no amount of trying to please God is going to cut it. That's what that verse says to me...
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
But what really comes to mind is the Corinthians verse:
"if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing."
