Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel wrote:
Please show me the passage of Scripture where it says, "faith is absolute knowledge without evidence."

Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

"Certain of what we do not see" to me means absolute knowledge without evidence."

LOL. And it's funny you should mention a woman loving a man for no reason. That is the woman's role in "The Third Man". To have faith in God is not different.

IC wrote: For in your illustration of the young man who wants to know if a woman loves him, she does not love him for absolutely no reason. If she does, she's simply demented.

If one loves a person that one cannot see, touch, hear in a physical way, you call it demented. I call it faith....

Here ya go...

1 Peter 1:8–9
8 Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, 9 obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

And from the above quote, looks like God calls it faith too....simply because your not going to gain a thing from it. Oh yeah....you have reason all right...and your reason is your eternal salvation. If you weren't so afraid of your eternal damnation to hell. I doubt you would even bother with Christianity or God, the way you're talking.

Here's another scenario...what if a person loves God for no reason? Like Abraham...I mean here is a guy, who was willing to kill his son, whom he loved dearly, for God. God here, was testing Abraham's blind faith. God gave Abraham no reason to believe he was a good God. Surely anyone in his right mind would turn away from a God so despicable! But not good ol 'demented' Abraham. No Abraham believed now matter what. No matter if he had to give give give and all God did was take take take. There was absolutely NO reason for Abraham to believe in a good loving God... Meaning there was no reason for Abraham to love God. He just did. That's faith.

Could Abraham have made himself understood to anyone? Would anyone in his church condoned his behavior? Would the church say, "Yes, Abraham! You are so lucky that God came down to you personally...he picked you out of all of us to kill your son! Your place is guaranteed in Heaven!"

No.

And you know why? Because Faith is a personal thing. You don't understand that now, but now I have planted the seed I think and you will be shown in time. Not by my words...you will forget those. But God will show you...every time you go to church, you will hear it repeated over and over.

22 One day Jesus said to his disciples, “Let us go over to the other side of the lake.” So they got into a boat and set out. 23 As they sailed, he fell asleep. A squall came down on the lake, so that the boat was being swamped, and they were in great danger.

24 The disciples went and woke him, saying, “Master, Master, we’re going to drown!”

He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. 25 “Where is your faith?” he asked his disciples.

In fear and amazement they asked one another, “Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him.”[/i]

Notice how Jesus asks them "where is their faith."

It is like God says, " If you have the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains. Jesus had that much faith in his father. We don't.

It is by his grace that we are saved.

Here...


Ephesians 2:8–9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

But now let me show you how much you follow the church instead of God. You may not be aware. Here are your words:

IC wrote:...because the interpretation you've got is one nobody else believes, which is pretty good reason to suspect you're not seeing it reasonably. If there were a majority...or a reasonable number of people to agree with you...or even just a few really smart people...then maybe. But that just isn't the case here. And when you're truly alone in your opinion like that, it's usually a good time to check yourself...

- but all the Christians I've ever known (and I've known tens of thousands, at the very least) know full well that some statements in the Bible are clearly intended as metaphorical.

Nobody, but nobody I've ever met -- either on the skeptic side or on the Christian side -- thinks Christ was speaking literally there.

And if you suppose otherwise, I'll have to say that not only no Christian I've ever known agrees with you, but the skeptics and critics of the Bible don't believe what you believe either.

you're alone on that interpretation. Nobody else thinks you're right.

You seem to think, like my sister, that there is safety in numbers. You and I both agreed that we will stand alone on judgment Day. Your church and all it's parishioners will not be there to defend you. Best to stop following their interpretation then...trust in your own interpretation. Trust in God not your church or it's members. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me"

Neither the Biblical account nor the vast preponderance of Christians would agree with the definition you are attempting to force upon them.

Not true...I think I made it clear over and over...I have said, "Please don't follow me...follow God".

artisticsolution wrote:I am not understanding what you mean? You think the 10 commandments are not part of Christianity?

Are they in the NT?

Arising_uk wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I am not understanding what you mean? You think the 10 commandments are not part of Christianity?

Are they in the NT?

No...but they don't need to be as Christians believe in the old and new testament.

I kinda like to think of it like this:

Jewish religion believes only the OT is the word of God

Christians believe the OT and NT is the word of God

Mormons believe the OT, NT and the book of Mormon is the word of God.

I don't know anything about what other religions believe.

artisticsolution wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:Er! I thought the ten commandments not Christianity?

I am not understanding what you mean? You think the 10 commandments are not part of Christianity?

He's right, actually...but in a way, so are you. They're "part," but not "core," not the essence of Christianity.

The 10 are generally recognized by Christians as good, moral commandments. Christians certainly think it's good to keep most of them, except for #4, the commandment to keep the Sabbath, which only Judaism practices, because Christians changed that in the wake of the teaching of Christ and the Resurrection. While Christians generally do celebrate the 10 as moral laws, they do not practice number 4 or the 613...because many of them were never given to Gentiles, and some of them are clearly not applicable to Christians.

But this is a key difference between Christianity and Judaism: Christianity is not a law-based belief. Salvation does not hinge on commandments (see Romans 3:20, or for a full explanation of the role of the law in Christianity, see Galatians 3:19-26). The Law, for Christians, is seen as "good," if you could keep it: but no one can, so it does not conduce to salvation. It's a faith-based religion "...He [God] saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy..." (Titus 3:5), or "By [God's] grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works..." (Ephesians 2:8-9). Keeping rules doesn't make you righteous, in Christianity's view.

The idea of keeping the commandments is good...but nobody manages to be good in that way. Never mind all of the 613: everyone has broken at least some of commandments 3-10. Who, for example, has never stolen anything -- even time, from their bosses? Who has given their parents unbroken respect? Or who has never jealously desired something another person possesses?

Not only that, but anyone who puts anything ahead of God has already broken #1. So if the 10 Commandments were the road to salvation, nobody would be saved at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: The 10 are generally recognized by Christians as good, moral commandments. Christians certainly think it's good to keep most of them, except for #4,the commandment to keep the Sabbath, which only Judaism practices, because Christians changed that in the wake of the teaching of Christ and the Resurrection. While Christians generally do celebrate the 10 as moral laws, they do not practice number 4 or the 613...because many of them were never given to Gentiles, and some of them are clearly not applicable to Christians.

So if you can't keep 'em, pretend they don't apply to you?

That is not in keeping with the Lord's word. The OT and the NT are meant to work together. ..like a symphony. You Are Following Your Church and not God. Think about it.

*Edited because I used the wrong quote.

artisticsolution wrote: So if you can't keep 'em, pretend they don't apply to you?

No, as I said, Christians aim at keeping numbers 1-3 and 5-10. But human nature being what it is, no one succeeds.

Let me explain why. You don't use a thermometer to fix a fever...a thermometer only tells you how far off "healthy" you may be right now. You fix a fever with rest and medicine. And you don't fix a human with the Law. The Law just shows you how far off "healthy" morally speaking one may be right now. It doesn't do anything to fix the problem. For that, you need the medicine God has prescribed. (See Romans 5:8-9).

That is not in keeping with the Lord's word.

Actually it is...did you even look up the verses I cited? You'll see I'm telling you the gospel truth.

It's exactly what the Bible says. I suspect that perhaps you're just going with an impression you've been carrying around...it's an idea a lot of people have, but it's not a Christian idea, and it's not a correct idea about Christians. Sorry.

Immanuel Can wrote:

That is not in keeping with the Lord's word.

Actually it is...did you even look up the verses I cited? You'll see I'm telling you the gospel truth.

It's exactly what the Bible says. I suspect that perhaps you're just going with an impression you've been carrying around...it's an idea a lot of people have, but it's not a Christian idea, and it's not a correct idea about Christians. Sorry.

I have looked up and quoted so many passages AND explained why I think they mean what they say. You have not done one ounce of work. Verses you cited? Which one is that? As you have not understood any verse you have cited so far.

The way I see it, this new brand of Christianity you are in, is just trying to be relevant in today's world. They have to figure out a way to do that so they have have to change God's word to fit in with their ideal...cause no body is believing in Christ anymore....the evolution argument is winning. So instead of keeping the lords word honestly, you are bending it to fit your needs.

You and 'christians' don't need to do that, as I am trying to point out. All you have to do is say you are fallible but that you try very hard to keep the lords word. And then...do your best, to humbly follow right instead of wrong. AND when you do slip up...which we all do...take personal responsibility for it! That way you show you are at least honest! It's the dishonesty from your type of Christianity that keeps people from God. You are doing satans work and not even realizing it.

Most people know right from wrong. It's that Christianity has pitted themselves against almost everyone...like the frigging borg!

Stop judging other so harshly and humble yourself before them.

Do you think atheist don't notice your screwed up views and mangling of God's word? They do! And they mistakenly believe you are doing 'the lords work'. But you are not. It's no wonder people run screaming from the church! They think God, has told you to behave like that! Of course they would steer God...why would they follow your God when clearly you make a mockery of him?

Just do what God said and you will be fine. All else is bullshit. You are not going to hell for keeping the sabbith...trust me. There is no need to even throw that out.

But hey, do my little test in on the first page of this thread if you are in doubt.

Imagine you are before God on Judgment day. Imagine you telling him that you only kept 9 of his commandments with pride.

If you can say it with all honesty. then you are on moral ground as you are not capable of understanding. However, if you hesitate for a moment, you know you are wrong and you know God would think so to.

And besides, you believe that you are saved no matter what...since you believe Christ is the savoir. So why even read the bible? You're good to go...right?

"

I've learned from our discussion thus far that sometimes your first reaction is more a burst of emotive stuff than a focused expression of your views on a subject. And that's okay: but that's what this last message seems like to me, as I read it.

I don't want to hold you to you first reactions, as that doesn't seem entirely profitable; so I'm going to wait for a bit and let you sort your thoughts again, okay?

I'll check back later today, and just see what you've decided to distill out.

Immanuel Can wrote:I've learned from our discussion thus far that sometimes your first reaction is more a burst of emotive stuff than a focused expression of your views on a subject. And that's okay: but that's what this last message seems like to me, as I read it.

I don't want to hold you to you first reactions, as that doesn't seem entirely profitable; so I'm going to wait for a bit and let you sort your thoughts again, okay?

I'll check back later today, and just see what you've decided to distill out.

My thoughts on the subject are sound. Why not instead, I mean if you really want me to understand where you are coming from, you look up the quote and then post them in here...and tell me a little about what you believe them to say.

You haven't done that,yet. Instead you wait for me to do all the work.

The burden of proof is on you, because I have no idea what you are trying to say. And without scripture to back it up, to me it sounds like you are saying, "follow me, not God."

Is that what you mean for me to take away from our conversation?

artisticsolution wrote:Why not instead, I mean if you really want me to understand where you are coming from, you look up the quote and then post them in here...and tell me a little about what you believe them to say.

Because if I look them up, then you wonder if I'm telling you the truth. If you look them up, you know I'm telling you the truth.

Instead you wait for me to do all the work.

It's really no work at all. Here's a great site, featuring practically every version of the Bible you could want, in multiple languages. Just plug in the the references I gave you, and you'll see that they say exactly what I said they did. And it won't take you five minutes, and you will know beyond any reasonable doubt. https://www.biblegateway.com

Without scripture to back it up, to me it sounds like you are saying, "follow me, not God."

Right, it would sound like that. So you now have the Scriptures, and you have not merely my word but your own free judgment to show you whether or not I'm telling the truth.

Is that not the best possible solution?

Sorry: I missed this message earlier. Things were moving along a bit.

artisticsolution wrote:

Immanuel wrote:Please show me the passage of Scripture where it says, "faith is absolute knowledge without evidence."

Hebrews 11:1 tells us that faith is “being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”

Of course it is true that faith helps us bridge the gap between the evidence we see and the things we cannot yet see, because they have not happened yet (i.e. he fulfillment of what God has told us). That' s routine.

But note, this does not imply that faith happens without knowledge or evidence. After all, how can we "hope" for something if we don't even know what it is? If we say a Christian must "have faith in Christ," we're surely not saying he/she ought to have faith in something unnamable and undefinable, but in precisely the same Person for whom we have so much evidence in the gospels and the epistles, the same Person attested to in the Old Testament, the same Person the Christian has personally come to know, and the same Person to Whom Christians have looked in faith for 2,000 years.

Now, notice: that's not "absolute knowledge without evidence." That's extension from the evidence into confidence. And that is indeed what "faith" involves.

Now, you also questioned this claim:

For in your illustration of the young man who wants to know if a woman loves him, she does not love him for absolutely no reason. If she does, she's simply demented.

To love without evidence is not even to know whom -- or what -- you are "loving." You cannot love that which you simply do not know at all. That would be mere sentiment...without object, truth or purpose, or derangement, the gratuitous imagining of things which simply are not there. And surely you don't believe that that is what Christians think they are doing, do you? You must at least believe they think they're believing in something that has reality, do you not?

Then you offer another quotation...

Here ya go...

1 Peter 1:8–9 "Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

You have the same mistaken position here. You imagine that because people have not physically seen Christ, they must just be operating on imagination. But this is clearly not a rational jump on your part. The Bible reveals a great deal about who Jesus is, and about all that He taught and did. In that sense, we do "know" Christ. But have we seen him physically...perhaps in an ecstatic vision or dream? No. But that's no problem. Again faith bridges between what we do know and what we have yet to fully know. But it does not operate without evidence.

This is just a good description of my own position. I have not personally seen Jesus Christ. And yet I love Him, believe in Him, and, as it says, "rejoice with a joy inexpressible." As to the salvation of my soul, I have no doubt it adds up to that, though that too is something I have not yet seen. But my faith is grounded in the facts of God's promises, of the character of Jesus Christ, who promised these things to me, and on the reality of what He's done in my life so far.

That's not "no evidence." That's a great deal. It may not mean much to you, but that doesn't prevent it from actually being evidence either. I'll bet there's a lot that you and I know differently, and whatever is evidence for you may not be evidence to me right now either.

If you weren't so afraid of your eternal damnation to hell. I doubt you would even bother with Christianity or God, the way you're talking.

Actually, I have no fear at all on that score. But you'd have to know that for yourself, and you can't, so I suppose I cannot expect you to take my word for it.

Here's another scenario...what if a person loves God for no reason?

If he/she has no knowledge of God, he/she can no more love Him than he/she can love mirages. You simply cannot love someone of whom you have no knowledge. Love always has an object, and that object is always particular...a particular person or thing. So there is no such case.

There was absolutely NO reason for Abraham to believe in a good loving God... Meaning there was no reason for Abraham to love God. He just did. That's faith.

Not true at all. I see you haven't read the story. You seem to have a rather odd unKierkegaardian take on Kierkegaard's short version of it, but it looks nothing like the Biblical narrative. According to the Bible, Abraham was personally called by God from a place called Ur of the Chaldees, and went out into the desert and travelled around communing with God. He and God had several encounters before Isaac was even born, and long before Kierkegaard's event, Abraham had a long-standing knowledge of God.

Hey, if you don't believe me, just ask a Jewish scholar. He'll tell you exactly the same thing. Or read the account in Genesis. You'll see for yourself.

It is by his grace that we are saved.

That's true.

I said,

you're alone on that interpretation. Nobody else thinks you're right.

You replied:
You seem to think, like my sister, that there is safety in numbers.

No, but there's no safety in being alone either. Numbers don't increase truth, but neither does sparsity of numbers. And common sense tells us that when everyone else disagrees with us, even thought we may still be right, we'd best check ourselves to make sure we are.

Neither the Biblical account nor the vast preponderance of Christians would agree with the definition you are attempting to force upon them.

Not true...I think I made it clear over and over...I have said, "Please don't follow me...follow God".

You were telling me about what you think Christians think faith is. I was reassuring you that a great many Christians do not in fact think that. On the question, "Is faith warranted?" the number of Christians who believe it is is not relevant; but on the question, "What do Christians think 'faith' means?" (the question we were actually addressing) the number of Christians is, in fact, extremely relevant to the answer.

You wanted to tell me that Christians think faith means "belief without evidence." I was replying that Christians generally do NOT think that. And you can easily check and see I'm right.

Now the question of the Biblical answer is a separate issue, since as you point out, what Christians believe could potentially, or might not potentially be the same as what the Bible says. But that's a different question. And on that, you seem to be labouring under the impression that unless your view is weird and marginal, not typical of the main Christian view, then that view of faith cannot possibly be the same as God's view.

Now, understand that I happily agree that there are no guarantees that other people are right just because they're the majority; but, on the other hand, being oddball doesn't make you any more likely to be right either! Not oddness, but truthfulness makes a view true. The only way you're going to know whether what most Christians believe about faith is true or not is by comparing it with the Bible...

Odd things do not become true because of their oddness, nor do majority views turn out to be wrong by virtue of being majority views...either they're true or they're not, independent of all that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Why not instead, I mean if you really want me to understand where you are coming from, you look up the quote and then post them in here...and tell me a little about what you believe them to say.

Because if I look them up, then you wonder if I'm telling you the truth. If you look them up, you know I'm telling you the truth.

You telling me your 'truth' means nothing to me...God's truth is the only one I know.

I have read everything you have quoted...and have shown you why I think you're wrong. All you have done is simply asked me to trust in your interpretation. ..but you haven't said why yours is in keeping with the scriptures. This is dishonest. You want me to follow your word when I am quite capable of understanding God...and not only that...I am least honest enough to tell you exactly why I think what I do. You instead only point out that you are right because the majority agrees with you. Might makes right huh? Now let's see...wherein the bible does it say that? Oh yeah....nowhere.

now again...would you have me follow your word. Or would you have me follow God?

So please be honest and quote one scripture of your choice and tell me what you think God meant by it.

If you can't do thst....and instead act like a borg assimilated into a collective type mentality. ..then we are done here...as there can be no discussion when all you want to do is follow the herd.

artisticsolution wrote:I have read everything you have quoted...and have shown you why I think you're wrong. All you have done is simply asked me to trust in your interpretation.

Actually, as anyone can plainly see, this is precisely what I have NOT done.

..but you haven't said why yours is in keeping with the scriptures.

And this is what I HAVE done, as again, anyone can see.

You want me to follow your word

This, again is what I have not done.

when I am quite capable of understanding God

And this is what I have encouraged you to do -- to read the passages, and use your own mind to decide if I'm telling your the truth. After all, why would I give you the Biblical references if I expected you to take my word for anything? Yet I have given you the means to look up everything I have quoted. If I were expecting you to follow my word, why on earth would I give you access to the relevant evidence? That would defeat that purpose.

You instead only point out that you are right because the majority agrees with you.

I have said the opposite. I have said it doesn't matter how may people say this or that, except to the question, "What do people think of x or y." I've told you that it has nothing to do with the truth value of what they believe.

Might makes right huh? Now let's see...wherein the bible does it say that? Oh yeah....nowhere.

Nobody but Nietzsche said anything like that... I certainly did not...and he didn't believe in "right" anyway. So I'm perplexed as to where you got this idea.

Now what you've done is just offered a bunch of false accusations, which any reader at all can go back and see aren't true. And I've got to admit, I'm quite surprised. It's really like you've forgotten everything I said, because you've actually repeatedly accused me of saying the opposite of what it did.

Well, where do we go from here? Unless you at least deal with what I say, instead of accusing me of things I did not, it seems hard to know how to go forward.

I have no idea what you are talking about In your last post I am afraid. If everyone went back and read our posts they would clearly see it was I who backed up everything i said with scriptures. You didn't.

No, but there's no safety in being alone either. Numbers don't increase truth, but neither does sparsity of numbers. And common sense tells us that when everyone else disagrees with us, even thought we may still be right, we'd best check ourselves to make sure we are.

But you still aren't understanding what I am saying . It's not about safety for me.

Don't you get it?

It's about personal responsibility and accountability and honesty.

If I don't see God, then I an not going to say I have evidence. That would be dishonest.

However, I will say I feel the holy spirit. So, I have that...but that is not enough to be sure of a God. Not 100%. So if I am honest, I can't say I have evidence.
I mean, after all...I could just have that feeling for a number of reasons. ..having nothing to do with a God.

But that is neither here or there. You said that you aren't 100% sure either a while back, if this is true, then you are lying about this ' evidence' you claim to have.

What is wrong with being honest anyway? Do you think you can fool God?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Might makes right huh? Now let's see...wherein the bible does it say that? Oh yeah....nowhere.

Nobody but Nietzsche said anything like that... I certainly did not...and he didn't believe in "right" anyway. So I'm perplexed as to where you got this idea.

I haven't read much Nietzsche...I tried but it was a little whiny for me. It just sounded like a negative spin on Kierkegaard.

I got the idea from in my brain when I read you. You don't seem to realize how often you back up scripture with..."everyone think this so it must be true."

I don't know how you consolidate the ideas of a "personal relationship with God" AND still can say, "Everyone thinks this so it must be true."

I just don't get it. It seems to me as if you aren't reading the scriptures for yourself. You are having them paraphrased for you by the church.

But if you aren't aware of this, then you won't be held accountable by God. So I guess it doesn't make a difference anyway.