|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Faith and salvation -- let's cut to the chase :)
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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.
And this is why the Bible is called a "Testament" or "Covenant." It is something you can agree to or not.
If everyone agreed to it, and if everyone fulfilled its conditions, the world would be a paradise. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
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
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:
``The way I see it -- faith is the same as acting in obedience to the will of the Father which is the same as loving your neighbor which is the same as God's words "what does God require? To love mercy, to act justly, and to walk humbly" which is the same as pursuing the kingdom of heaven which is the same as following Christ which is the same thing as being "saved."''
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. 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.
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. But that's not the definition of `faith' that most Christians use, I suspect. That's just `being a good person', isn't it?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Sure, you can agree to it. Problem is, there's no guarantee of remuneration for holding up your end of the deal.
quote:
If everyone agreed to it, and if everyone fulfilled its conditions, the world would be a paradise.
I guess it would depend on which parts of the Bible most people followed...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
Freddy:
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?
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
In the long run I believe it works better when people believe in God.
In other words, society can work well whether people believe in God or not. But over the long haul, a society with no belief in God, or where belief in God is rare, will struggle.
I guess that there are a lot of experiments currently going on in the world to see whether or not this is true. Currently it appears that nations with a high percentage of atheists are doing just fine. We'll see how it turns out. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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 guess I don't understand your definition of faith then. 'Cause for me faith is not merely an intellectual assent to doctrine. Faith is living life, living life in the most best way - the way Christ exemplified it for us, namely dying to one's self and living a life of love.
quote:
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.
Again, it goes back to what Mousethief was pointing out - what is "faith"? It all depends on how you define faith, I guess.
quote:
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.
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)
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But that's not the definition of `faith' that most Christians use
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.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
I suspect. That's just `being a good person', isn't it?
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.
Sorry about the ambiguous response but the best I can say is that none of us are good but we, each one in faith, in various decrees being are being made righteous through Christ. And that process can be painful. It includes dying.
Freddy can probably say more words on this matter of being a "good person" - I don't quite know how to phrase it myself.
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Joyfulsoul, I identify with everything you are saying here. Thanks! ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
Dear Joyfulsoul
I, too agree with everything you say. And your mention of Micah 6.8. I don't believe that anyone in any religion has come up with a better requirement of us and for our salvation. Salvation by creed is a sad diversion of mainstream Christianity.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
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"?
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.
I will stick with St Augustine's simple definition: "Faith, on the other hand, is an acceptance of, or assent to, something that is not clearly seen." That's all there is to it. Forget the "special effects". I have no doubts that they exist and even that they usually occur on the path to greater saintliness. But St Therese of Lisieux demonstrates quite beautifully that one can tough it out on acceptance/assent alone, even contrary to one's experience, even in the face of "having lost God" experientially. How often have we heard that someone has "lost their faith" in the sense of now lacking that "special connection to God"? Such "special faith" is the icing on a cake, not the bread of life.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If goodness were not possible without faith how would we ever arrive at the faith required to get goodness?
Grace.
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.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. We've already had 30-odd pages on [hell], and not got anywhere ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I whole-heartedly disagree!
quote:
I have no problem with not knowing the answers to deep questions.
I completely believe you, CC. No need to be worried. The confusion arose from-
quote:
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.
But I think it's cleared up now.
quote:
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.
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.
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
No, this sort of faith can by definition never be rock-solid because being rock-solid would not be faith.
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"?
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I am granted the goodness to be able to say "Jesus is Lord" in the first place.
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I see what you mean and I don't really disagree. But Jesus said:
quote:
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.”
And also:
quote:
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.”
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
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."
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.
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.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
quote:
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.
When I was an atheist, my faith was all in me. It's so much less stressful these days.
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professorkirke:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
1. We've already had 30-odd pages on [hell], and not got anywhere
I whole-heartedly disagree!
Sorry, by `not got anywhere' I meant that we had not achieved consensus I didn't mean that it was a fruitless discussion. Of course, expecting consensus on such a subject is asking a bit much
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
quote:
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."
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.
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.
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
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Of course, expecting consensus on such a subject is asking a bit much
Amen!
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alfred E. Neuman
What? Me worry?
# 6855
|
Posted
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. 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.
Posts: 12954 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
There must be two kinds of knowledge. Or two senses in which knowledge can be helpful or limiting.
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.
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lou Poulain
Shipmate
# 1587
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
Alison contends that human culture is violent and exclusionary and persecutorial, but it is possible, by means of grace, to change our perspective (what he refers to as acquiring the "intelligence of the victim,") enabling us to see thru the eyes of the victim and restructure our lives in compassion for the other. In my view, the life of faith.
He talks about Karl Rahner's idea of the "anonymous Christian" who, in Alison's parlance, perceives with the intelligence of the victim, and lives a life in compassion, a life congruent with the Kingdom of God, made possible by grace irregardless whether the person (like the sheep in Mt 25?) knows the identity of the Victim who was slain/First Born from the dead, or not.
He also labors to say that he does not equate knowledge with salvation, or vice versa, but that the acquision of the "intelligence of the victim" insofar as it reorders our lives, is a sign of salvation.
I admit I've probably butchered a fair amount of what Alison has to say, but I have been noodling on the contents of the book (well, the first half of it) for a few weeks now. Unfortunately, I don't have it with me as I write to make sure I do him justice.
Lou
Posts: 526 | From: Sunnyvale CA USA | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joykins
Shipmate
# 5820
|
Posted
quote:
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. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
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
Thank you for articulating something I've been trying to articulate for some time but have yet been unable to.
I agree completely.
Posts: 350 | From: Maryland, USA | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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.
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."
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
I think perhaps I was mistaught (is that word?) in my youth. I mistaught that everyone who didn't confess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord was destined for the hell-fires. But what I think is really crucial is that none of my teachers seemed to really understand what it means that Jesus is Lord.
I mean what about this verse:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)
So when I say that I have seen non-believers of faith - I mean that I've seen people be obedient to God's will (perhaps often completely unknowingly) by being kind to others, selfless, noble, pursuing the good, desiring to be transformed to being a more full person, enduring some really terrible things but not continuing a pattern of cruelty...etc. And what pleases God is obedience - so perhaps these people (though they are not confessing christians) please God because they are obedient to his will by choosing good and following it.
quote:
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.
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.
If we look at the gospels, Jesus rarely required his followers to sign some sort of doctrinal statement of belief -- rather he was content enough just hanging out with them and teaching them and loving on them and allowing his presence to grow and impart value knowledge and beauty and love and transformation for them.
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.
So, yes, this is long way of saying that I feel that faith is not just faith in something (as I had been taught previously) but maybe instead maybe faith means that we live out pursuing God's will (?) -- (because that pleases God).
I don't know. This is my best guess at the moment. What are your thoughts on faith? And what does faith mean to you?
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
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
Exactly. You put it so concisely!
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy (quoting a book):
quote:
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity,
What is it then?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy (quoting a book):
quote:
Charity devoid of faith is not genuine charity,
What is it then?
It's charity, just not genuine. A person can be kind for self-centered reasons, and the kindness would then be not genuine.
Of course, no one's kindness is perfectly genuine, since none of us are perfect.
I would take it in a pinch though.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
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)
Fortunately for me, Revenue Canada and registered charities do not apply this principle. Otherwise, I would not receive so much as a thank-you, never mind a tax receipt, for my faithless donations. Ah, obviously I'm doing it for selfish ego-gratification, not because I want persons with AIDS or persons in conflict with the justice system to get the help they need, or because I would like homeless and injured animals to get proper care, or because I want British Columbia's young women to develop their leadership potential...
That quote will definitely remain in my memory as one of the most insulting things I've ever read on the Internet. OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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
You may have just helped me settle in my mind the usual meaning of the word "charity." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I wasn't referring to aid organizations or to the practice of giving aid. I was using the word to mean ordinary thoughtfulness, kindness, love, good works or goodwill.
I was not meaning to suggest that aid organizations, and their contributors, that are not faith-based, are not genuine. Far from it.
The idea is just a variation on James' statement:
quote:
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."
Similarly, works without faith is lacking.
Not meaning to be insulting. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 30. January 2006, 17:49: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Similarly, works without faith is lacking.
Not meaning to be insulting.
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.
In one of your earlier posts, you said,
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.
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.
Freddy, I apologize for sounding jerkish. This discussion is quite emotionally involving and appears to be affecting my language abilities.
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
I understand about this being an emotional topic. I appreciate your honesty!
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
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
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niënna
Ship's Lotus Blossom
# 4652
|
Posted
quote:
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
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?
--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land
Posts: 2298 | From: Purgatory | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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
Surely, in terms of Salvation, the only thing that matters is whether God accepts it as such ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
One may wish to very rapidly, retrospecitively accept it in certain after-life scenarios one could imagine....
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
One may wish to very rapidly, retrospecitively accept it in certain after-life scenarios one could imagine....
Amen, sir. Aaaaaaa-men.
Oh, and what Marvin just said, too.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
I wonder how much of the faith/works argument boils down to whether we think the kingdom (for us Christians here ) 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.
Or, otherly, whether we think the kingdom is already there, waiting for us and that we simply need to accept it.
Of course the first argument is redolent of hubris (constructing the kingdom being an action of the ego infused with power)….and the latter an act of humility (recognising that we cannot make the world a paradise through our will but only through accepting the kingdom that is already there awaiting us)…..so I know which I reckon is the Christian way…..
The question is, how many think that it works the other way around; that what we build in this world is directly how we make the kingdom come into being? That, to me, is what “salvation by works” implies. Sure we are told to feed the hungry etc but we are told to seek first the kingdom and THEN feed the hungry…not seek to create the kingdom by feeding the hungry.
Erm, does that make sense?
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bester
Apprentice
# 10639
|
Posted
Hello all. I am new to this so apologies if I don't get this posting thing right!
I found reading this debate very thought provoking. For me, the problem with the whole faith vs. works dilemma goes something like this:
It can't be that people are saved purely by an intellectual belief in God- as James points out, it's possible to believe that God exists and yet reject following Him. Equally I have known atheists and agnostics who appear to have a very real hunger for something outside themselves and who put far more effort into leading a good life than many Christians, yet for whatever reason they have an intellectual problem with the exsistence of God.
Then again, it can't be that people are saved purely through works- what about a mass-murderer who genuinely repents and tries to change his ways near the end of his life? If salvation is purely through works what is the point of unconditional forgiveness?
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?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evo1
Shipmate
# 10249
|
Posted
I believe we are saved by works.
(Just not ours)
--------------------
Just think how horrid I would be if I didn't have a Personal Relationship with Jesus
Posts: 1058 | From: Hull, England | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
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?
Welcome Bester! Very nice thought.
I guess it makes sense that the question can only be answered by God in each individual case. Generic "do this" rules are hard to make fit every circumstance.
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?
The real question, I think, is how we go about acquiring those two loves. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Faith surely plays a part, as does active obedience to God. But love is a slippery thing, and people can have it who may not seem to have abided exactly by the rules. It is possible for it to appear quickly, and it is also possible for it to be absent even after a lifetime of apparent faith in and obedience to God.
Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life" because believing in Him, obeying Him, and loving Him are the way to having heavenly love in your heart.
However, this love comes in degrees. It is not an all-or-nothing acquisition. To the extent that what anyone loves, believes, and lives by is consistent with what Jesus taught, to that extent he has heavenly love and the happiness of heaven.
So I guess I don't really see why this needs to be such a difficult question. Certainly there is no "one-size-fits-all" way of arriving at salvation and the certainty of salvation. It is surely a process that is both too complicated for simplistic formula and elastic enough to fit billions of people's individual situations.
At the same time, virtually every religion on earth is in agreement as to most of the basic essentials about how people ought to live. Anyone who loves God and the neighbor and sincerely practices some belief that seems consistent with those loves is not likely to go far wrong. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
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 ) 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.
Or, otherly, whether we think the kingdom is already there, waiting for us and that we simply need to accept it.
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teapot
Shipmate
# 10837
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:
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 ) 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.
Or, otherly, whether we think the kingdom is already there, waiting for us and that we simply need to accept it.
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.
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. - Matt 4:17
Blessed are the poor in spirit: for their's is the kingdom of heaven. - Matt. 5:3
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for their's is the kingdom of heaven. Matt. 5:10
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matt. 7:21
Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matt. 18:3
A rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Matt. 19:23
All kind of imply its already there waiting for us to accept it.
--------------------
No I am NOT short and stout! But I will be happy to accept one of each at a pub :)
Posts: 608 | From: In a shrubbery! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
It's the "love God" bit I have trouble with.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's the "love God" bit I have trouble with.
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.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
Sort of like a theological "keep your head down and get on with it"?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bester
Apprentice
# 10639
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
