Is faith realistic?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=VarlosZ]
What an unappealing tautology. I’m sure it’s more fun to argue against the least charitable understanding of “faith” possible, but that fun comes at the expense of the people who read DT’s posts. Those who disagree with them are annoyed. Both those who agree and disagree, I’ve found, tend to get bogged down in a nasty semantic argument without realizing it (though there are plenty of exceptions, of course).

Anyway, the point is that there are other conceptions of faith besides the one that makes Der Trihs so angry. Some are completely opposed to his preferred conception. Example:
[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Alan Watts
Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don’t grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float. And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

That’s a great quote that I will save. Thanks for posting it. It’s interesting that he describes the fanatics {who speak loudest about their great faith} as having no faith at all. Being open to the truth as faith. what a great concept.

That’s my conclusion about the classic definition in Heb 11:1

Our certainty and surety is not in a detail of belief we already hold , but our faith is that by acting on what we believe is true , with a desire to learn more and be open to more, we progress. We have faith that we can and will grow and discover.

btw I find I don’t get bogged down by DT because when he starts spewing his brand of atheist fundamentalism I just stop responding.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I totally agree with you. In fact, this gives an explanation of the Communism as religion problem. It isn’t a religion so much as an example of the non-changeable belief system much like evangelical religions. Same for political philosophies that get implemented, fall on their faces, then get defended by their proponents who say the experiment failed because the philosophy was not followed exactly.

We can also distinguish between a “real” atheist (one I feel sympathy for) versus someone like a child in the Soviet Union who is an atheist through indoctrination. Someone who is an atheist based on faith alone is just as dumb as the worst fundamentalist. The typical theist canard about atheism being based on faith (which is rarely true) comes from a lack of understanding of the alternative, being belief based on evidence. I’m not saying that people can have different beliefs based on analysis of the same evidence, but that the problem is lack of analysis at all.
[/QUOTE]

Right!

Extreme patriotism that has to separate us {the good guys} from them {the bad guys} without an honest heartfelt examination of the evidence comes to mind as well, or even partisan politics where we have more allegiance to the party than we have to honesty or integrity in serving the public.

I’ve talked to lots of more traditional Christians who retreat to “well I just have faith” when their beliefs feel threatened and I’ve often asked. " faith in what in particular? Is it faith born of a sincere examination of the beliefs, or is it faith in a tradition created by men?"

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Right!

Extreme patriotism that has to separate us {the good guys} from them {the bad guys} without an honest heartfelt examination of the evidence comes to mind as well, or even partisan politics where we have more allegiance to the party than we have to honesty or integrity in serving the public.

I’ve talked to lots of more traditional Christians who retreat to “well I just have faith” when their beliefs feel threatened and I’ve often asked. " faith in what in particular? Is it faith born of a sincere examination of the beliefs, or is it faith in a tradition created by men?"
[/QUOTE]

Somewhere in there we need to discuss the emotional attachment to beliefs. Christians and other believers need to realize that a strong feeling is sometimes a strong personal feeling rather than the Holy Spirit speaking to you. They need to understand that challenging them to examine their beliefs is not attacking God , Jesus , or them personally.

Non believers IMO need to realize that a lack of religious belief doesn’t make their argument or their belief system better and more reasonable by default. They also cling to certain concepts for emotional reasons.

I think the belief systems approach for everyone can be more useful in breaking down walls and creating understanding.

Thanks for your input. You’ve been instrumental in helping me sort this out.

[monavis]

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Not much is in scriptures about outer darkness, but it seems like it is reserved for those who are called by God and for whatever reason don’t fully heed the call or don’t do anything with their gifts. It is in Mathew 8:12, 22:13, and 25:30.

Beyond that degrees of Hell which may help in understanding is in some apocphical <sp> books, I beleive the Book of Enoch does go a bit into the afterlife of the condemned. You can also check out Outer darkness - Wikipedia for Wiki’s take on it.

Another source of information is revelation, some people have visited Hell and has seen outer darkness, this is not a good source of information for a non-believer as discernment of the Holy Spirit really needs to be employed in such matters.
The sin that started it all is that if you eat of this fruit you will become ‘as God’. Basically we become our own god, and that’s where people are at birth, they are their own entity and fully responsible for themselves and the results of their actions, including defending their ‘godhood’ against other forces which wish to dominate them and subdue them (satanic forces). God has to allow us choices to make if we are really to be our own god. We have to be able to set our own path.

Yes there are limits set, possibly to prevent us from quickly self destructing, possibly to limit the interaction of satanic forces and us, as if they were given more access to us they may be able to quickly dominate us and it would be hell on earth literally - though they have quite a bit of influence already. Those limits allow us time to explore and chose our god without being quickly overcome by the enemy.

As for the paths, God has one path and God is one, those who are not Spirit filled can’t know that path is God’s path and may not see it at all, those who are still has to chose to follow that single path. Missing that path at any time is called sin, which basically means to miss the mark - any sin means we are not on that one path, and have missed the standard of God, and are now on our own path, and on our own (Jesus changed this part).

As us being our own god we are subject to the influence of other ‘gods’ with their own agenda, and place ourselves into bondage to these gods - which is giving up our ‘godhood’, through deception Satan may convince some to follow him to lead others to the same place.
[/QUOTE]

When the Psalmist said “know there fore that you are Gods” It was really Satan inspiring him? And when Jesus used this psalm when accused of Blasphmey because he called God his father, was he inspired by Satan?

Monavis

[nd_n8]

[QUOTE=monavis]
When the Psalmist said “know there fore that you are Gods” It was really Satan inspiring him? And when Jesus used this psalm when accused of Blasphmey because he called God his father, was he inspired by Satan?

Monavis
[/QUOTE]

No.

As I read it, when Asaph [sic] wrote that god said “You are gods” he was indirectly refering to the responsibility placed on man as a result of the original sin. Because we chose to become as gods by eating the fruit we must take on the responsibility and accountability of gods, however since we are men we will still die like men. When Jesus used this quote to defend himself it comes off in the same context. Not as Jesus bragging but as Him explaining that we all have the responsibility of gods in the bodies of men.

As this responsibility was taken by man voluntarily (albiet after the influence of the Great Judge) and as an act of free will, we all share the responsibility of others unto our death. Reference to this responsibility is not Satanically charged but is instead a reinforcement of previous scripture.

Or at least that’s how I take it, YMMV.

[monavis]

[QUOTE=nd_n8]
No.

As I read it, when Asaph [sic] wrote that god said “You are gods” he was indirectly refering to the responsibility placed on man as a result of the original sin. Because we chose to become as gods by eating the fruit we must take on the responsibility and accountability of gods, however since we are men we will still die like men. When Jesus used this quote to defend himself it comes off in the same context. Not as Jesus bragging but as Him explaining that we all have the responsibility of gods in the bodies of men.

As this responsibility was taken by man voluntarily (albiet after the influence of the Great Judge) and as an act of free will, we all share the responsibility of others unto our death. Reference to this responsibility is not Satanically charged but is instead a reinforcement of previous scripture.

Or at least that’s how I take it, YMMV.
[/QUOTE]

Jesus was said to have conqured death, so no one should die. Adam and Eve were told now they knew the difference between good and evil they must die, nothing was said or implied about the death of a soul. When one dies there is no life in it’s body, (just as any other animal, so a soul is not necessary and death is the same for plants and animals as well as humans. Their bodies return to the atoms etc. of which they were composed of when their life was passed on from their parents.

Jesus always said my father and yours,he made no distinction that he was different than any other human if he really existed and the word were really His own not some other writer.

monavis