Faith!?!?

[cataracts]

farrider said:

I excercise faith everytime I get on an airplane. Statistically, the plane will get to where it's going with no problem, but there's always a chance that it won't. I take it on faith that the plane that crashes won't be the one that I'm on.

If you sit down on a chair, you are taking it on faith that it will hold you up, but there's always a chance that it won't. You can't always tell by looking at it that it is damaged beyond it's capacity to hold your weight.

People take leaps of faith every day, but for some reason when it comes to religion it becomes problematic for them.

You're right Far Rider. Religious Faith is problematic. My guess is that they don't know what they are putting their faith in. They are uneducated. They are uneducated for some real good reasons. It's not taught in schools and it's not mentiioned in the media, (any of the media). If you mention it in polite company or less than polite company, you may be considered a screwball. Our college professors have just about convinced all of their students that "God doesn't exist". Then there is a big one. Your faith doesn't make any money. Whatever you do, don't talk about it at work.

On top of all this, you need a modicum of faith just to get into Heaven.
I would say we all need some really heavy duty prayers.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

One other thing Far Rider. We shouldn't have to take a leap of faith. We should know what it is that we will have faith in before we have it.
C.

[FightingFalcon]

All of our unbelievers, to whatever school they belong, and however great may be their differences, agree in the denial of the supernatural (not Tittus). They also deny the miraculous.

Not true at all. Take me for example - I firmly believe in God. I also strongly deny anything miraculous, mystic or omnipotent about Him.

All of them, bar none, make a boast of recognizing only reason and nature. This is where the titles of Naturalism and Rationalism come about. It is also the one thing that unites all of them.

I have minor issues with this but overall yes, Logic and Rationalism trumps all.

But you leave out the Human Spirit...nothing Holy about it. There are people out there (such as myself) who believe in the will of the human being and nothing more. No miracles required. No diety needed to achieve the "miraculous".

[Far Rider]

cataracts said:

One other thing Far Rider. We shouldn't have to take a leap of faith. We should know what it is that we will have faith in before we have it.
C.

Everything is a leap of faith. Just because you believe in something doesn't mean it's going to pan out for you. The chair you're sitting in might not hold your weight.

The point is, stop thinking about faith as a religious thing, because it's not.

The point in Hebrews is quite clear:

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.

There's nothing superstitious about this - it's as natural as sitting in a chair, flying in a plane, or crossing the street. A life without faith is unlivable.

[gibran]

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Hi folks, sounds to me as if Paul is saying that faith is something that is not contrary to reason but is the product of reason. It is not unreasonable to have faith that your car will start in the morning and deliver a person to work. It is faith based on experience therefore faith based on reason. You don't need to know how the car works to have faith in its operation, just ask my daughters!

So in my opinion it is with faith in Christ. He did everything it was said He would do and everything that was said about Him. It is only reasonable that He will do what He promised.

[cataracts]

Far Rider,
I understand the faith that you have defined. This type of faith is not a supernatural faith. You could, if you wanted too, take the worst pagan in the world, who also happens to be a killer, and he could have the faith that you described.

Cataracts.

[Far Rider]

It doesn't take much - faith the size of a mustard seed will do it.

[gibran]

Posted by FightingFalcon on Dec 15, 2006, 1:36pm

Quote:All of our unbelievers, to whatever school they belong, and however great may be their differences, agree in the denial of the supernatural (not Tittus). They also deny the miraculous.



Not true at all. Take me for example - I firmly believe in God. I also strongly deny anything miraculous, mystic or omnipotent about Him.


Then you deny Jesus Christ?

[cataracts]

Good answer Gibran. We cannot get to Heaven by ourselves. We must depend on Jesus. The many miracles that He performed were treated in three ways by the people that witnessed them.
1) They believed that Jesus personally made the miracle.
2) They didn't care if Jesus made a miracle or not.
3) They saw the miracle, realized it was a miracle and then turned Him into the Pharisees, probably for some kind of monetary return.

Please note, all the witnesses believed. Modern man, with his intellectual capacities, doesn't believe
Cataracts

[tits]

A question based on the implications of the recent posts.

Where did the religious leadership (Pharisees, leaders, and teachers of law) get the idea that performing a miracle was work and not an act of faith? Basically, their actions imply that receiving a miraculous healing was not an act of faith, but a work.

Jesus went out of his way to flaunt his command of nature in the face of the leadership. He went out of his way to do it on the Sabbath.

According to some scholars, the Mishna had evolved from the half a dozen Levitical statements and the Exodus commands on the Sabbath to over 518 specific commands. Things such as "who among you would not leave the 99 and go and find the lost sheep" and "who among you would not go and retrieve you ox that had fallen down a well?" The Mishna had specific commands concering actions that could be taken that would not cause one to sin against the sacred Sabboth.

There are specific commands concerning things to do to cleanse and to prove healing, all involved very expensive sacrifices and works. Most of those that Jesus healed were destitute, is this why he told them not to tell that he had healed them?

The only thing that Jesus could be considered guilty of would be in forcing those that he had healed on the Sabbath to perform those works of cleansing. With the exception of the Blind man and the cripple by Solomon's Colonnade, we have no record that any of those healed did as told. This includes those which He told not to tell. The sad thing is that it cost the blind man his citizenship.

Question, does it seem strange that Jesus would perform miracles in public and before the Sanhedrin and then to tell the one healed not to tell.

[tits]

You're right Far Rider. Religious Faith is problematic.

All faith is problematic. I look at the dangers of political faith and where the social implications can lead. Look at the Twentieth Century. National Socialism, Communism, and Dictatorships led to deaths of over 130 million through military conflict.

I have argued with many over the last few years who have argued that religious faith was more dangerous. The problem is that our society attempts to use multiple definitions for the term.

American Heritage
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.


Merriem Webster
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF

New Advent
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness,...
Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. It is with this subjective aspect of faith that we are here primarily concerned. Before we proceed to analyze the term faith, certain preliminary notions must be made clear. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

All faith is problematic.

My Protestant faith based on a childhood of Catholicism and Lutheranism and world travels with exposure to Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam screams that there is no different in the heart of us humans. The difference is in our knowledge and our zeal.

Now there is where this discussion needs to go.

[cataracts]

tits said:

A question based on the implications of the recent posts.

Where did the religious leadership (Pharisees, leaders, and teachers of law) get the idea that performing a miracle was work and not an act of faith? Basically, their actions imply that receiving a miraculous healing was not an act of faith, but a work.

Jesus went out of his way to flaunt his command of nature in the face of the leadership. He went out of his way to do it on the Sabbath.

According to some scholars, the Mishna had evolved from the half a dozen Levitical statements and the Exodus commands on the Sabbath to over 518 specific commands. Things such as "who among you would not leave the 99 and go and find the lost sheep" and "who among you would not go and retrieve you ox that had fallen down a well?" The Mishna had specific commands concering actions that could be taken that would not cause one to sin against the sacred Sabboth.

There are specific commands concerning things to do to cleanse and to prove healing, all involved very expensive sacrifices and works. Most of those that Jesus healed were destitute, is this why he told them not to tell that he had healed them?

The only thing that Jesus could be considered guilty of would be in forcing those that he had healed on the Sabbath to perform those works of cleansing. With the exception of the Blind man and the cripple by Solomon's Colonnade, we have no record that any of those healed did as told. This includes those which He told not to tell. The sad thing is that it cost the blind man his citizenship.

Question, does it seem strange that Jesus would perform miracles in public and before the Sanhedrin and then to tell the one healed not to tell.

Tittus,
Those 518 (or614) specific commands were not handed down by God. They are the "tradition" of the Hebrew faith. When Jesus spoke about not paying attention to "tradition" of men this is what He was speaking of. It certainly couldn't have been Catholic "Tradition" because Catholic "Tradition" hadn't been formulated yet.

The Pharisees ruled the Hebrew world with an iron fist. They even had their own soldiers to muscle anyone that didn't cooperate with them.

Cataracts

[cataracts]

tits said:

You're right Far Rider. Religious Faith is problematic.

All faith is problematic. I look at the dangers of political faith and where the social implications can lead. Look at the Twentieth Century. National Socialism, Communism, and Dictatorships led to deaths of over 130 million through military conflict.

I have argued with many over the last few years who have argued that religious faith was more dangerous. The problem is that our society attempts to use multiple definitions for the term.

American Heritage
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.


Merriem Webster
Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
synonym see BELIEF

New Advent
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness,...
Objectively, it stands for the sum of truths revealed by God in Scripture and tradition and which the Church (see FAITH, RULE OF) presents to us in a brief form in her creeds, subjectively, faith stands for the habit or virtue by which we assent to those truths. It is with this subjective aspect of faith that we are here primarily concerned. Before we proceed to analyze the term faith, certain preliminary notions must be made clear. www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

All faith is problematic.

My Protestant faith based on a childhood of Catholicism and Lutheranism and world travels with exposure to Taoism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Islam screams that there is no different in the heart of us humans. The difference is in our knowledge and our zeal.

Now there is where this discussion needs to go.

Tittus,
It doesn't make any difference what Webster or the other secular dictionaries say about Christian Faith. It doesn't make any difference what a Taoist, Buddhist, a Judaist, or even a Jew says. This is the problem with Protestantism. Protestants have taken Christianity and molded it into what "they" decided it should be. This is the Traditional definition of "heresy". If you want the truth, then go to Catholic teachings. Go to what the true Church teaches. The Catholic Church is the authority on what Jesus Christ has brought to Earth.
I realize this goes agains the grain for Protestants who think they know it all, but it is the truth. If you want the truth, then you go go the Catholic Church. You will not find it any other way.

The Eastern religions have something going for them. After all if there wasn't some truth in what they say, they would have ceased to exist a long time ago. However, none of it compares to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If Protestants really wanted the truth, they could have it for the asking. But they would rather wallow in the mud of Protestantism. Are you going to wait until after death to find the truth?

Cataracts

[tits]

I know more about the Catholic Church than you do about any of the Protestant. I could easily shoot holes in many of your arguments. But I will not, that is your faith. That is what Satan and the world use to justify their intolerance of religion and especially Christianity. That is, that the hypocrisy between our preaching the love and acceptance of Christ with our actions; we spend more time throwing curses and stones at each other. To the world, the Catholic Church is just another form of Christianity. They lump all of us into the same bag of nonsense; Catholic, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Conservative, and Mormon alike.

The concept of a nondenominational worship is what drew me to those early "Promise Keepers" rallies. Men from all denominations praising God the Father with one voice. In 1992, I had a priest, a Baptist, a Pentecostal, and Jewish C Christian, sitting in front and behind me. Non of us refused to pray, praise, or sing together. We all hugged, laughed and cried together at the words of Christ.

Question, if 63-67% of Americans claim to be Christian, why are abortion and gay rights are tolerated? Both are clearly against the Christian belief. Yet, there are just as many Christian Democrats as there are Republicans. If the Catholics, Lutherans, Protestants, Pentecostals, and others were to speak as one, would abortion and gay rights be an issue? How then can two Catholic stalwarts Kennedy and Kerry continually support two "rights" which God calls an abomination?

By the way, "New Advent" is the official Catholic Encyclopedia.

[gibran]

cataracts said:

Tittus,
It doesn't make any difference what Webster or the other secular dictionaries say about Christian Faith. It doesn't make any difference what a Taoist, Buddhist, a Judaist, or even a Jew says. This is the problem with Protestantism. Protestants have taken Christianity and molded it into what "they" decided it should be. This is the Traditional definition of "heresy". If you want the truth, then go to Catholic teachings. Go to what the true Church teaches. The Catholic Church is the authority on what Jesus Christ has brought to Earth.
I realize this goes agains the grain for Protestants who think they know it all, but it is the truth. If you want the truth, then you go go the Catholic Church. You will not find it any other way.

The Eastern religions have something going for them. After all if there wasn't some truth in what they say, they would have ceased to exist a long time ago. However, none of it compares to the teachings of the Catholic Church.
If Protestants really wanted the truth, they could have it for the asking. But they would rather wallow in the mud of Protestantism. Are you going to wait until after death to find the truth?

Cataracts

IF the Catholic Church is the sole arbiter of truth then why has it changed so in its history? Why are the masses no longer in Latin? Why were they in the first place? Why do they not sell indulgences any more? Come on, the eucharist really really turns into the body of Christ? Why did the Catholic Church fight the revelation of the Good News with the printing of the Bible?

With that said I see no problem with Catholics changing or believing what they so desire. It is faith in Jesus Christ that matters, that is all.