by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Do you bother to read other people's replies?
The point is not that OT "giants of faith" had appaling morals by modern standards, but that christians are willing to do mental gymnastics to defend those actions by modern standards.
I am judging the popular opinion among modern western christians that Abraham's actions are worthy of admiration and imitation.
Maybe they are judging them by what they believe to be God's standards. Since you don't in believe in God you don't recognise that as a valid perspective. Are you following me?
No I am really not following you at all.
You argue just for the sake of it. I find it tedious.
Good night.
What other reason is there for arguing? You are imposing your standard of justification for arguing upon me.
I think you do follow me, you just don't know how to argue against the obvious. It's easier to take on Creationists and stuff.
No it's just that there is no foundation for discussion with somebody who asserts there is no such thing as a fact - apart from the fact that there is no such thing as a fact of course.
You constantly join in discussions about facts to contribute nothing apart from your tedious epistimological skepticism.
You see my name on the list of topics and you have prepared your contirbution to the thread before you have read a single word.
I don't find it challenging, it just bores me. Life is too short to spend it gazing at your navel.
What about the rights of mussels? Mussels are humans too you know!
(There was a story on the BBC today about rare mussels, and how they are transported "humanely")
I suspect you missed the point that the way we treat animals actually says more about us, HOMO SAPIENS, than it does about the animals themselves. And besides that, the way we treat other living beings affects the way we feel about OURSELVES, so how we transport mussels effects OUR humanity, not THEIRS (even if they're only being delivered to the soup factory to be made into chowder).
It's a realization that the way we treat other living beings on the Planet takes a toll on our humanity, not theirs. We've wiped other species out in the past, driving them extinct, and the ones we're ultimately harming is current and future generations of humans who are deprived of the diverse benefits and lessons that they aren't around to offer (even the molecules they carry which might ultimately be the cure for cancer, benefitting us).
Ultimately, though, altruism IS selfish, i.e. in our best interests, since it's based on the idea that when we do something to improve the World around us for others, it also makes it a better place for US, as well.
I agree with you slavery is bad.
So why in your opinion, is slavery bad? What reasons do you offer to support that position?
I just don't see the point condemning people who literally lived in a different world from us.
It's obviously not the characters depicted in the story that matter (which are likely fictional, anyway), but that they're supposed to be viewed as examples worthy of modeling our FAITH upon; we're supposed to believe in their stories based on FAITH, and then to apply their examples in our lives based on FAITH.
The problem is that most people can read ANY OTHER work of fiction set in the ancient past in another location (like Homer's Iliad and Odyssey), and not read it as a personal message from the past, encouraging them to BELIEVE it as truth based on FAITH, and then to ACT upon what they read in the book based on FAITH. Somehow people who are otherwise able to function rationally become blithering automatons when it's THEIR book being considered.
The typical story in the Bible follows a fairly typical pattern:
1) God tells the character to do something, and they either:
a) Do it, and are rewarded,
b) Don't do it, and are punished.
You can run it in reverse, where God tells the character NOT to do something, and they either:
1) don't do it, and are rewarded,
2) do it, and are punished.
Change the names, and you've got the same basic motif reappearing throughout in the Bible. The message being taught is blind compliance to Divine authority.
Adam
Slavery is bad because it hurts people. I would hate to be a slave. So the idea of other people being slaves offends me and upsets me if I think about it at any length. Just the dark, bleak, hopelessness of it all. The unfairness too.
Mind you I have very similar feelings about people being sent to prison, especially for nonviolent crimes. But society is not on the same page with that yet.
After 2000 years since JC was executed , why have we not heard a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?
Because it was just a story for the people back then to believe in and disingenuous adventurous men to sell today.
Fictional story telling played an important role for ancient civilizations to self identify and distinguish themselves from other civilizations
and to a further extent to identifying presence of individuals who assumed positions as spiritual seers to those selective gods.
Who is saying slavery is good? We're talking about faith... the meaning of faith... and Abraham was commended for his FAITH. He heard, and believed, and obeyed. Noah heard, and believed, and obeyed. Peter heard, (who Christ was), and believed, and followed.
Don't make the mistake of equating faith with good (or bad for that matter; that is another subject). No one is good, because no one is without sin. We all sin (except for atheists of course; they don't ever do anything to wrong anyone )
Christ came to set people FREE; God said in the OT, that his idea of fasting was to break EVERY yoke.
Isaiah 58:6 Is this not the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke; to set the oppressed free and break every yoke...
And yes, you ARE going to find contradictory verses in the bible... hence the need for listening to Christ, testing all against Him, because He is the Truth and anything that is against the Truth... is well, not the truth.
But I see that we have been taken off track of what faith ACTUALLY is. That is okay. People can read the verses themselves, and ask Christ and God to help them see and hear, if they choose.
Peace,
tammy
Hi TEC,
Hebrews 11:1 is the ONLY scripture in the ENTIRE Bible where ANYONE actually attempts to define Christian faith in a methodical manner, and then the entire chapter attempts to present examples of men who showed faith in the OT.
Yes, examples of THEIR faith.
Well, duh? I mean, who ELSE'S faith could the characters possibly demonstate, but THEIR OWN? Hebrews 11 is intended to demonstrate THEIR FAITH, and reading about their faith is supposed to BUILD the READER'S faith, BY PROXY, by THEIR example.
So that we can better understand faith. By looking at these examples OF faith. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.
Exactly! And if you ever figure out why you're having such a hard time grasping it, let me know (or just act like you got it, and see if anyone else notices that you really DIDN'T).
Per Paul, a Christian's FAITH is the ENTIRE foundation upon which the Christian's hopes are built, serving as all the evidence of the spiritual realm any Christian could ever NEED (and could HAVE, since you cannot perceive the imperceivable, see the invisible, etc); obviously, the spirit realm is not discernable with sensory organs.
BY DEFINITION then, faith is defined as BELIEVING in things when there's absolutely NO DISCERNABLE DETECTABLE EVIDENCE on which to base that belief (and NO, the Bible, although it's a physical object, doesn't count as VISIBLE or CREDIBLE PROOF of ANYTHING, since there's a new genre of literature which writers call FICTION, and sometimes readers mistakenly confuse the stories inside as NON-FICTION. It's a thing, a fad, and I don't expect fiction to stick around for long....). I discuss the visible evidence of the Bible later, as it pertains to KNOWLEDGE, as well as how accepting it constitutes FAITH.
You tell me what you think faith is then. What is it actually? How is faith, which you say is based on nothing, evidence of something?
Ahh, I think she's finally getting it....
The definition of FAITH is SUPPOSED to be paradoxical, "a statement that on first glance is wrong, but upon closer examination reveals a deeper spiritual truth" (or at least is supposed to do so).
Paradoxical sayings are SUPPOSED to appear counter-intuitive and illogical to those who lack the ability to grasp deeper spiritual truths (and the very fact you're struggling to accept a Jesus-like paradox is very revealing). In actuality, though, it's an excuse to offer circular self-referential definitions (eg Hope is faith. So what is faith? Hope, with a dollop of trust thrown in) and hope that no one will be any the wiser to question the fast-talking nature of it.
Jesus was a walking, talking paradoxical generator, and this definition of FAITH is PERFECTLY in keeping with the kind of sayings that Jesus expressed, eg:
"But it shall not be so among you: but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of man also came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
"he who shall be first is last, and who shall be last is first",
"the greatest is the least",
"he who finds his life will lose it , and he who loses for my sake will find it" ,
"It is more blessed to give, than to receive",
"love those that hate you and pray for those that despitefully use you",
"count it all joy when men revile and persecute you, for so they persecuted the prophets that were before you."
"And if a man strikes you on one check, turn to him the other check, also."
ALL are examples of paradoxes, a rhetorical device tht gets real tired REAK quick if over-used.....
You DO realize "invisible evidence" is just meaningless gibberish, right? It's a paradox, like a "round square", etc. Just because words can be strung together to form a sentence that respects the rules of grammar does NOT mean the words contain a coherently possible or logical concept.
I realize that it is gibberish for you, yes.
But the fact is, the author of Hebrews is still speaking of evidence... unseen evidence; but evidence. So it is what he meant, whether you believe it to be true or not.
The definition of FAITH as "assured expectations of what is HOPED for", and "unseen demonstration of evidence", is INTENDED to be paradoxical. It's actually TWO paradoxes, lined up back-to-back, both essentially saying the same thing but simply rephrased. The point is to convey that faith is based on unsupported blind TRUST.
Think of an "demonstration", eg a protest march:
Now, imagine what that demonstration would look like if it were "unseen", i.e. what it might look like BEFORE you looked at the photo, as if it hadn't been seen by anyone, before the camera took the picture, even what it looked like before it seen by the participants (they were blind-folded). Now what would that demonstration LOOK like?
You'd HAVE to use your imagination to construct a mental image in your mind, which would be based on pre-existing conceptions of what demonstrations look like; the imagination of the believer is empowered to run free, since that's ALL they have to rely on. That's the POINT of the FAITH paradox; it's a poetic way of enabling one's imagination to run free. imagining what Heaven and God and Jesus are like, with the limits of the imagination contained by reading the KNOWLEDGE-based claims provided by "inspired" scriptures.
It's saying FAITH is based on NOTHING but hopes, wishes, desires, dreams, and the imagination, etc of what you'd LIKE to be true. No evidence that can be perceived by the sense organs need apply for the job, since FAITH is based ONLY on the believer's emotions, which are unseen.
It's just like the old saying, "if a tree falls in the forest, would it make a sound?", or "imagine the sound of one hand clapping", or any of the many other paradoxes that have fascinated men from time immemorial, making some listeners THINK the people who repeated them were really wise, until someone figured out they weren't "deep" after all, and some Greek labelled them as "paradoxes": linguistic prestidigitations that fool people who've never encountered them before (and those who still struggle with them, even if they HAVE).
Think of paradoxes like magic tricks for language, designed to impress and confuse listeners who are impressed and confused by nonsense.
Makes no sense, Adamah, and it isn't what Paul was saying either. His faith sure wasn't based on nothing either. The apostles faith was not based on nothing.
LOL! Don't you realize that by saying that FAITH is based on "nothing", you are actually insulting what faith IS based on: the willingness or even great thirst to accept a claim without any evidence that the Bible IS the inspired word of God, and the second-hand accounts contained inside which are claimed to be truths? The conclusions that Jesus and angels and Heavens and God is real, is based on NOTHING but FAITH. There is NO verifiable detectable evidence, NONE.
You keep insisting that you hear the voice of Jesus, but in all the scriptures you quote, he was speaking to PEOPLE who were ALIVE at that time, asking THOSE people to hear his voice and follow him to become his disciples. MOST readers of Jesus' words today understand that Jesus is long-since dead, and wasn't speaking those words LITERALLY (like you seem to believe), but instead they realize that Jesus was using a METAPHOR; they get a warm feeling inside by reading those ACCOUNTS of Jesus invitations to hear his voice, and interpret THEIR FAITH-BASED response of BELIEVING as answering his call, based on READING those accounts (as well as the accounts of the Men of Old) to build THEIR FAITH in Jesus and God.
As St. Thomas explained in citing Hebrews 11, faith does not have for its object realities grasped by the intellect (referring to rational thought, logic-based knowledge) or experienced with the senses, but the transcendent truth of God (Veritas Prima), proposed to us inrevelation (higher-level knowledge of the inexpressable truths, which again, aren't verifiable).
Faith is considered not just a virtue, but as a GIFT from God bestowed to individuals, inspired into one's soul by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:3). Believers have to ASK for FAITH; they have to be so emotionally-susceptible and receptive to the idea of faith (believing without visible evidence) that you have to BEG for it, PLEADING for it to give you the the strength to BELIEVE in promises and hopes that someone is unable to believe, based on nothing BUT FAITH. It's why they ask for MORE FAITH.
People HEAR, and believe. (or not) Sometimes they hear what other witnesses tell them about Christ (oral or written witness), and the spirit within THEM, hears and recognizes truth. Then THEY might learn to ask and listen and hear Him for themselves. Then put FAITH in what HE tells/teaches them.
If you believe Jesus making a personal appearance inside your head is building your faith, you're not showing much PROOF of it; you wouldn't be STRUGGLING with the definition of FAITH, since you'd already HAVE it.
If you claim that Jesus' voice is perceivable by you, then by definition it's NOT building FAITH, since it's the very OPPOSITE of "unseen evidence"; while it may potentially build your belief in Jesus based on experientially-obtained observation (KNOWLEDGE), it doesn't fit the definition of building belief based on FAITH. Believers are said to be bestowed FAITH as a gift from God (Eph 2:8-9), and thereafter to be maintained by Holy Spirit, but that's NOT the same thing as Jesus Christ making personal celebrity appearances inside your head to TALK to you and to BUILD your faith.
Besides, Jesus isn't the SOURCE of FAITH, but the OBJECT of FAITH. God is the source of faith.
From this website:
http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/readtheresthere.htm
The meaning of God being the source implies more than just His giving us faith. It means we have faith, or increased faith, in God. In other words, the reason why we have faith or faith increased is because there is a certain quality in God that induces us to trust in Him.
So in other words, a believer's faith in God is based on God giving the believer faith to believe in Him.
Circular reference, much?
It goes on:
The questions we should be asking is not "Do we have faith?", "Is our faith enough?" These questions become irrelevant. For these questions actually keep us in darkness and drive us to despair. What we should be asking are such questions as these: "Is God trustworthy?" "Is God believable?" "Will God relinquish His promise?" Are God's power and love real?" Our problem lies in always looking to our own side. Hence the more we search, the less we can find our faith. But if we can turn our attention to God's side, we shall immediately discover the faith that begins to rise in us. We ourselves are not the source of faith. No wonder that during introspection we could find faith nowhere! So, the more we look at the true source of faith - at God himself - and wait and meditate on Him, the more faith we shall have.
So the more you IMAGINE God, the more real He seems to you.
That would pretty much apply to ANYTHING we imagine, from unicorns to pixies: concentrate on it long enough, and it only becomes more "real" to you. That's the textbook description of a "self-reinforcing belief system", which is designed to create and reinforce delusions.
In the case of Abraham, Paul even says that Abraham completely trusted in God knowing that He would be able to resurrect Isaac if he slit his throat (never-mind that resurrection was an anachronistic belief in Abraham's time, as resurrection was introduced into Judaism MUCH LATER than the time in which the story of Abraham is set). The apolegetist Paul says Abraham remembered that God had earlier made a promise to build a Nation on Isaac, and rationalized that he could resurrect Isaac. Making decisions and rationalizing on the basis of FAITH (unseen evidence) is STILL FAITH, since making decisions on questionable assumptions is the very definition of FOOLISH decision-making.
The idea of a resurrection may have been introduced later, though I am not so sure you are right about that (there is a phrase when a man dies, he is gathered to his people, and that was used with Abraham)... but Abraham knew there would be a resurrection. He saw it from far off... but he saw it. Hebrews speaks of that too.
Although described as a prophet (someone who communicated with God), Abraham wasn't given the gift of prescience (seeing the future). He just wasn't. Instead, he had to rely on what Jehovah TOLD him would happen in the future, and had to TRUST in God's word. That SHOULD be obvious, since note that ALL individuals listed as "men of faith" in Hebrews 11 LACKED the gift of prescience, and none saw future events, eg Noah had to build an Ark based SOLELY on God's orders, Abraham had to rely on rationalization (a knowledge-based thought process) on a belief in resurrection to justify his FAITH, since he didn't KNOW beforehand that God wouldn't call it off at the last moment. God didn't TELL him, "OK, this is a TEST of your faith" beforehand.
Tammy, you are actually undermining the entire POINT of Christian FAITH by claiming that the Bible says what it doesn't, for WHY would God bother to TEST the FAITH of Abraham if he gave him the "answer" to the test BEFORE-HAND? If Abraham had the fore-knowledge that God would only call off the test at the last moment, it wouldn't be a TEST of FAITH. Paul suggests that Abraham rationalized his doubts away by trusting that God would resurrect Isaac (based on God's earlier promise for his progeny to be the Chosen People), but he didn't KNOW for sure and HAD to act on FAITH.
(And let's just set aside the BIG QUESTION of WHY God would need to test ANYTHING, if He already knows what's going to happen in the future.... Apologetists would say it's God letting the PERSON go through the experience to build their confidence in God via direct experience, where their FAITH is confirmed by seeing it rewarded by coming to pass. Once the promised event is actually SEEN by them, then FAITH is no longer needed, and the test contibutes to their trust in God by direct PROOF/EXPERIENCE; their BLIND FAITH was confirmed and validated by VISIBLE EVIDENCE of a fulfilled prophecy coming to fruition.)
The entire point of the account is to demonstrate that Abraham had FAITH that no matter what happened, God would make it right; no questions needed, since that's what FAITH is about. Abraham doesn't know the future, but had to RELY on God that He wasn't asking him to kill his son, and then say, "Ohhh, that's not what I meant, so it sucks to be you".
Besides, would it even matter if God HAD reneged on His promise, since "might makes right"? There's not much else you can do when your deity ORDERS you to kill someone, but to do what it demands, right?
Absolutely, it would matter. Who would be able to put faith in ANYTHING He said or promised, if He did not keep his word, and His promises fell through? Who could trust Him... ever?
Oh, I'm sure you can think of SOMEONE who'd have NO CHOICE but to act on faith. Hmmm, not me, but can you think of anyone, like mebbe a TRUE Christian?
You'd think that when God said, "the day you eat from the fruit, thou shalt surely die?" that his credibility would be blown off the bat, since He left out an important little detail that He'd be the proximal CAUSE of their death. He DIDN'T say, "The millenia you eat of it, I shalt surely condemn you to death for the act of disobedience."
Leaving out pesky little details like that seems to be the acceptable lying loophole in the Bible, eg like how "righteous" Abram repeatedly "forgot" to tell Pharoah that his half-sister Sarah was ALSO his wife (so Pharoah would give her much wealth, thus enriching Abram and Sarah)? Little bit of deception is OK.
It's a good thing the Bible doesn't record any OTHER events where God deceives, or left out important details, didn't keep his promise, except for MORE examples:
(Plenty more where those came from).
There is no conflict... but is there some reason you think an independent moral determination is somehow wrong.
You're kidding, right? Did you NOT understand the moral of the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit?
So your method of verifying claims is as useless as teats on a bull, since YOU would STILL have to use your OWN morality to decide which course of action was correct!
And if that's not bad enough, suppose Jesus told you to kill someone as a display of the very greatest act of love for them, yet you were offered no rational explanation to do so?
My Lord would not tell me to do something like that.. because it is AGAINST love. I would a) know that it is not Him speaking; and/or b) remind Him of what He has already taught me, and/or c) ask further questions to see if I have misunderstood what I THOUGHT I heard from Him.
Let me repeat it, then:
The scenario is you're TOLD that killing the person is the "greatest act of love", and YOU have to act on FAITH.
But I see you're going with a "Doubting Thomas" approach, implying you're a Jesus believer who's weak in your faith. That's fine, at least you admit it.
Would YOU, Tammy, stand up to Jesus and say, "No, Jesus! That would be wrong!"?
You seem to have forgotten Abraham... or you are ignoring him in an effort to make a point that does not apply.
Are you referring to the negotiation on behalf on the righteous men of Sodom? That doesn't fit: Abraham didn't have to ACT in that situation, as he was standing on the side-lines. No faith required in that interaction with God.
If you're referring to the Isaac sacrifice request, are you forgetting that Abraham WAS preparing to kill his son, but God called it off at the last minute? The Genesis account shows Abraham NEVER ONCE voiced any doubt, or expressed even the slightest sign of hesitation: he passed the test of his FAITH.
M'kay. If you say so. I mean, you're the one who's BFF with Jesus, right?
Actually, you are correct in that many people ASSUME that 2nd Tim is referring to THEIR Bible, the version they're holding in their hands, the "all scriptures" that 2nd Tim is referring to. Nope. Being that the NT wasn't canonized when 2nd Tim was written, it couldn't apply to much more than the Torah, and perhaps parts of the Tanakh.
I'm not sure if you can understand my amusment in your two statements above.
Explain? I suppose I should've put a smilie face on the first statement about BFF with Jesus, to indicate it was tongue-in-cheek?
In any case, yes, I know this already. But you were the one who said this to me:
you claim your voice tells you what is right and feels free to cherry-pick scriptures, which contradicts the Bible itself which assures readers that "ALL scripture is inspired, and beneficial", serving as the basis on which to build faith, etc. How can your voice AND the Bible be right?
Just checking, since I figured you WERE one of those believers who though it applied to YOUR OT/NT Bible (and somehow resolved the whole 'lying scribes' contradiction to soothe the cognitive dissonance).
But since you haven't provided a complete list of scriptures of OT/NT passages that were products of "lying scribes" (actually, you haven't even mentioned ONE scripture in the ENTIRE BIBLE) that we should reject on the basis of what Jesus' voice told you were not legit, I don't see anything wrong with the statement? Are you actually willing to throw out the ENTIRE NT, since 2nd Tim likely doesn't cover ANY of the NT?
I didn't flip flop on anything. I never claimed to have auditory hallucinations to begin with. Hallucination is YOUR diagnosis.
That is what YOU have taken from what I said. So you HAVE diagnosed me, and you speak to me with that diagnosis already accepted by YOU.
For the LOVE of Jesus!
You clearly don't understand the difference between basic terms which are CRITICAL to understand ANYTHING in medicine (which may explain why Jesus didn't know about the value of handwashing: he didn't know much about biology, either).
So repeat after me:
AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS ARE NOT A DIAGNOSIS, but a SYMPTOM.
Try it again?
AUDITORY HALLUCINATIONS are NOT a DIAGNOSIS, but a SYMPTOM!
Okay, how about you try to read the following and understand what I am saying:
I do not have this symptom that you have diagnosed me as having. I don't think that was too hard to understand. I do not have auditory HALLUCINATIONS. So all the words that you keep speaking about regarding that are moot.
Holy crapinski, Tammy! If you don't understand it by now....
NOBODY can diagnose you as having symptoms: SYMPTOMS are what YOU report to the doctor and tell him you are experiencing, and the doctor tries to ascertain the cause of the symptoms via testing to ascertain their cause; they return with the ANSWER, the DIAGNOSIS. Diagnosed conditions CAUSE various symptoms. Symptoms don't CAUSE the diagnosis, they SUGGEST what it might be. You're confusing cause and effect.
And you said a lot of stuff, but you didn't actually answer this question:
i'm not sure i understand what you are saying here... but no problem. I can rephrase my question. Why do you seek to apply one motive to me, over another? Why do you say that I am trying to be 'special' (showing off, teasing others, etc... as you have stated) rather than trying to 'help' others who are seeking or asking questions?
I DID answer it? My response is posted above.
You can't seem to handle that Christ is not the same as religion; and calls his people out of religion, out of what man has made and TO Him, in spirit and truth. I'm not in the danger that you are going on about... BECAUSE my faith is in Christ, and not men.
And you seemed to miss the bit where Peter was described as the rock upon which Jesus would build his church, his congregations, etc. The early Christians who managed the business of the early Church from Rome covered the Church "command and control" measures early on, but you're going solo?
The only law... is the law of love. Christ does not go against that... He TAUGHT that, He is FROM love. I don't need to worry about what others teach, their rules, hypocrisy, lack of knowledge, etc... not as long as I listen to Him, and not as long as I follow the law of love.
Again, you'd be wise to reconsider your answer to the question I posted above (repeated below):
Suppose Jesus told you to kill someone as a display of the very greatest act of love for the person, yet you were offered no explanation to do so, being told there was no time for explanation?
In fact, for all you KNOW, your compliance may even be a TEST of YOUR FAITH in your willingness to do what Jesus tells you to do, without asking questions. What do you do? Do you show the Faith of Abraham, or the faith of Doubting Thomas?
I am going to quote something from that Hebrews chapter, and hope that it helps you to see, what Paul is referring to in regard to things not YET seen:
By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemened the world and becaome heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
Noah was warned - so HE HEARD - about something that he had not YET seen (it had not YET happened)... but he acted in faith on what he HEARD, and what he had not YET seen, DID happen. His faith saved him, him AND his family, because he heard and exercised faith in what he heard. He did not act on nothing. He acted on what he HEARD, but had not YET seen.
Sigh... Noah acted on FAITH by trusting that what God TOLD HIM would happen in the future WOULD actually come to pass: Noah acted on FAITH by building the ark.
FAITH does NOT require hearing the voice of God, eg a few of the accounts in Hebrews don't feature God TELLING humans what to do (or what God would do), but having faith DESPITE not be ordered by God to carry out a certain act which demonstrated their faith, eg Hebrews 11:23:
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hidden for three months by his parents, because they saw that the child was beautiful, and they were not afraid of the king’s edict.
Review Exodus 2, and realize that God doesn't enter the account until the burning bush incident, when Moses was fully grown! So his parents (precursors to the Levites) acted on FAITH, not having been directed by hearing voices, etc, but simply becuase they discerned that baby Moses was somehow special, and they didn't fear the Pharoah: they had FAITH that he'd be important somehow. They put him in the Nile without being told to do so by God.
Rahab had nothing to act on BUT FAITH, having heard stories about God's actions against enemies of the Israelites (much like modern believers rely on second-hand accounts from millenia ago): Rahab heard no Divine voices, saw no inspired visions. She tied the red rope on her window as a sign of her FAITH, on the basis of a promise delivered by the mortal Israelite soldiers. No personalized appearances by deities for her.
THAT is the example of faith that the author of Hebrews is describing. That is what faith is... hearing, though not YET seeing. That is how Abraham could be certain of the resurrection, though he had not YET seen it. Same with all the other examples listed that had people acting on what they heard, but had not YET seen.
Nope, just not so. In fact, Hebrews 11 kicks into high gear in verse 32-38 with early martyrs, etc who didn't enjoy the privilege of being given ANY perceptible evidence (either heard OR seen), but they died relying ONLY on the (invisible evidence) of their FAITH in Jesus.
It seems your demanding PROOF and evidence points towards your not understanding the most important POINT of FAITH? That's just amazing to me, that you'd think it's your right to be given a spiritual tour guide personally assigned to you by God, to provide you with visible evidence... Not so surprising, actually, since deities curiously have the odd trait of being made to the customized tastes of each believer.
Adam
