wow that's a long post
After 2000 years since JC was executed ,why have we heard not a whisper from GOD ALMIGHTY ?
by smiddy 268 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
tec
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.
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 even 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).
You're missing it. Completely. So we will have to agree to disagree.
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.
I'm not struggling, love. I know what faith is. I don't know it by the pages in a book. I don't know it according to some theory that I or others have drawn up. I know it... because I have it. And yes, it is a gift. And the promise Christ made: If you love me you will obey my teachings, and my father will love you, and we will come and make our home with you.
It is you who does not know. You just don't see that. And you've got plenty of fast talking in your responses to me.
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."
You cannot lead unless you first serve. It sounds like a paradox, but it is a truth.
"he who shall be first is last, and who shall be last is first",
If you want to be first over others, where is the love in that? Love is the point here. One who loves, wants to serve, to help. Again, a truth.
"the greatest is the least",
The greatest by man's standards, yes... but man and God see things differently.
"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",
Well, it is. I'm not sure that's a paradox though. Perhaps. It is true.
"love those that hate you and pray for those that despitefully use you",
Because love... perfect love... does this. Loves friends AND enemies. That is being perfect, like God is perfect... who sent His son for ANYONE to be saved who put their faith in Him; even those who had set themselves up as enemies of God. Christ showed this also.
"count it all joy when men revile and persecute you, for so they persecuted the prophets that were before you."
This isn't really a paradox. Men reviled and persecuted prophets and those sent to them by God... so be happy if that is what they do to you, because you are from God also.
"And if a man strikes you on one check, turn to him the other check, also."
This is not a paradox. This is not returning evil for evil. Another example of love.
ALL are examples of paradoxes, a rhetorical device tht gets real tired REAK quick if over-used.....
They're not though.
You'd HAVE to imagine a mental image in your mind, which was based on pre-existing conceptions of what demonstrations look like; the imagination of the believer is empowered to run free, since that's ALL you have to rely upon. 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, the limits of the imagination determined by reading the KNOWLEDGE-based claims provided by "inspired" scriptures.
No, you simply have to listen to what you are being told or shown. Not your imagination; but what God speaks to you. (or today, what Christ speaks)
Like Christ might tell you that there is going to be a riot at this protest and people are going to die. He might even show you, in a vision or a dream. He says to stay home, so you are not hurt. You exercise faith in Him, by exercising faith in what He said, and NOT going out... and you even keep your family in, thereby they are saved because of your faith also.
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. Nothing that can actually be seen need apply for the job, since FAITH is based ONLY on the believer's emotions, which are unseen.
Not even close. But you believe as you choose. I will continue with what I know, from what I have been given.
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 (gullibility) 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 your FAITH.
The bible is not the inspired word of God.
Christ is THE Word of God.
The bible is a collection of books, some are scripture (inspired), some are witness accounts, some are letters, some is history, some is poetry or metaphor.
So you might want to make a different assumption. My faith is not based on something that is not true (your conclusion that faith is based on a claim that the bible is the inspired word of god)
The bible can speak about Christ... and point toward Him as Truth... and HE shows us God, as the Image and Word and Truth of God... but at some point one leaves off reading ABOUT someone (who is alive), and gets to know that person, for themselves. Then their faith is SURE.
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 now dead, and wasn't speaking those words LITERALLY (like you seem to do), but instead they realize that Jesus was talking in METAPHOR, and they get a warm feeling inside by reading those ACCOUNTS of Jesus invitations to hear his voice, and interpret THEIR response as answering his call, READING of those accounts (as well as the accounts of the Men of Old) to build THEIR FAITH in Jesus and God.
Most readers might think that... but so what. Those same readers are ignoring Paul, being spoken to by Christ... as the Spirit... after his death AND resurrection; or Peter, having been spoken to in his vision/dream; or John, in Revelation, in the spirit. Christ had a voice in all of those occasions, and it was not metaphorical.
You might want to rethink that one.
As St. Thomas explained in citing Hebrews 11, faith does not have for its object realities grasped by the intellect (referring to rational thought, knowledge) or experienced with the senses, but the transcendent truth of God (Veritas Prima), proposed to us in revelation.
LOL.. what do you think revelation is? It is hearing, receiving, as John did, as he heard (and saw), from Christ.
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 HAVE it.
In the spirit... as He promised. And again, it is not me who is struggling.
Perhaps you would like to tell me what it is like to be a woman, simply based on what you have read about women? You might learn a bit about it that way... but it would be silly for you to try and tell a woman what it is to be a woman, over what she tells you it is. Maybe you misunderstood the book.
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.
Well, repeating something makes it super certain, I suppose ; )
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.
Yeah... I don't get your point. All prophets know the future events... because they were TOLD or SHOWN them.
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 didn't answer the question.
You're kidding, right? Did you NOT understand the moral of the story of Eve and the forbidden fruit?
That's another conversation, and I've read what you think that was about. I've shared what I have on the matter many times here.
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.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I don't think you heard me. How would that be the greatest act of love? That is a question I would ask, considering all He has taught ABOUT love.
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.
No, I'm going with an asking questions; testing the inspired expression approach. You know the one that Abraham used... and then later we are TOLD to test the spirit, to see if what was spoken came from God.
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.
He didn't have to act... but it does show that one is allowed to question God, albeit with respect... because of course you could be the one not understanding, and lacking faith in the love that you know God IS, and the promises He has made and taught... if you think to judge Him without even asking Him.
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.
And perhaps YOU are not understanding that we learn by that, that God does NOT need us to sacrifice anyone/anything to HIM... God PROVIDES for US. That lesson was pretty much stated with an exclamation point.
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).
Well, now you know otherwise. (or maybe that tactic just backfired ; ) )
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?
Not going to either. You want the truth... listen TO the Truth. Look at Christ, if you want to know the truth about God. I"ve never gone through it myself... I don't need to. I just listen to Him.
Are you actually willing to throw out the ENTIRE NT, since 2nd Tim likely doesn't cover ANY of the NT?
LOL.. do you throw out books (metaphorically speaking) that aren't claimed to be inspired of God? Or do you take them for what they are, on their own merit? In this case, the NT is written accounts giving witness to Christ... in the flesh and the spirit; as well as letters that Paul and others wrote to various people after His death and resurrection; as well as scripture (which Revelation is... it is inspired; it was given in the spirit, by Christ).
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.
Then stop telling me what symptoms I have. Hallucination is your label... not mine. You may believe it, of course... but you will understand that I will not accept a label that you are applying to me, just because you don't believe Christ is alive and does speak. I did describe MUCH earlier in the thread, exactly how I have heard Him speak. YOU labeled that.
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.
No, you didn't. If you did, perhaps try again in much fewer words for my sake. Why do you apply one motive to me, over another motive?
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?
Upon the faith that Peter showed in that moment, Adamah.. the faith, and not the man, himself.
Christ is the Rock. And Peter was not favored over the other apostles; they are all foundation stones... though Christ is the ROCK, the cornerstone.
Of course, if you really were concerned for me, as you stated earlier... that I would put my faith in men, being vulnerable to them... then you probably wouldn't try to convince me that I SHOULD do so, would you?
My Lord teaches me to put my faith in Him, not in men... no matter what claims they might make about being the truth (that would be an outright lie... HE is the truth); or the true organization. There is simply truth, who is Christ.
Also, can't go solo if Christ is WITH you.
I'm not going to keep repeating myself; so I don't think I will be addressing the matter of faith with you anymore, unless perhaps you bring up something new. But everything else is here... the only thing left to do is to ask and listen for Christ to explain; to open your eyes and ears. You can always ask for faith, and then LISTEN.
Other than that I am sure that I will see you around the board.
Peace,
tammy
-
cofty
listen for Christ to explain; to open your eyes and ears. You can always ask for faith, and then LISTEN.
Christians waffle in metaphors and then pretend they have said something.
-
DJS
Cofty, you and the other "non-theists" who have participated in this discussion are better than I. I have no desire to argue with people about their make believe characters, gods, saviors, fables and myths. Believing, as I have stated before, requires nothing that our primate cousins the chimps and monkeys don't possess. It is one step up the evolutionary ladder from reactive response to external stimuli. I'm trying not to enter theist, atheist discussions as a result, It appears other non-theists are following the same course. So Cofty thank you for carrying our banner. You do it admirably. Theists will blather on and on saying the same things and using the same mindless arguments over and over in the face of the overwhelming facts used against them. Why? Because they believe. We can't change that, not with all of the rational arguments in the universe. I also have no desire to view the theists with contempt, as they have traveled a similar path as I and I view them as kindred. I would only wish that they would use the intellect that led them out of the WT cult to move beyond the edge of the water. They are similar to the individuals who, after failing to heed the warnings to leave their homes during Katrina, managed to get to the edge of the water (usually because the government that they had ignored was air or boat lifting them to safety) and immediately sat down on the dry concrete, complained about being hungry and whining that the president didn't love them and was letting them and their baby be hungry. Too many of them didn't strike a lick to move beyond the edge of the water and actually DO something. Be a solution to the problem rather than the problem. Too many, IMHO, after leaving the WT are trying to hold on to failed ideas and ideals, metaphorically sitting on the dry concrete at the edge of the water without DOING something. Thinking, analyzing, for example, WTF got you into this predicament in the first place. Sorry for droning on boys and girls. I will stop now. Godspeed theists. And I mean that in the most honorable manner possible.
-
adamah
Cofty said-
Christians waffle in metaphors and then pretend they have said something.
Yup, and worse is they don't even understand what paradoxical sayings are, since they've accepted the rationalization of the paradox, having long-ago forgotten what the original disconnect was that led to it being considered paradoxical, in the first place!
That's some heavy-duty suppression of thinking, and paradoxes explain how believers come to accept that first is last, up is down, rich is poor, visible is invisible, poor is rich, faith is evidence, etc. It's just another brick in the wall of the inversion of logic that the Bible forces readers to accept. ON FAITH.
Then if they encounter a paradox that's just a bit too excessive for THEIR personal tastes, they refuse to accept it, but quickly come up with an alternative explanation that fits into THEIR image of God (and it's not hard to find an alternative approach in the Bible, the Holy Book of Multiple Choice Answers, where NO choice is wrong, if you don't think it's wrong and you can come up with a rationalization that satisfies a party of ONE: yourself).
Tammy seems to think if she can find ONE example of someone hearing voices to justify it as the basis of FAITH, that's good enough: she's willing to overlook the VASTLY more numerous examples of "men of faith" mentioned in Hebrews who DIDN'T hear a voice or see visions of future events (including Moses' parents, who had no such experience on which to base their FAITH) so she's able to ignore the MANY EXCEPTIONS that disprove her claim. That's a classic example of cherry-picking, AKA selection bias, only seeing evidence that you WANT to see, and automatically putting on the blinders for anything that DISPROVES your conclusion (where FAITH is another way of saying, 'shutting down cognition and going with one's feelings and prior beliefs').
That also explains why believers are able to excuse Abraham's rape and forced surrogacy of his slave-girl without so much as blinking an eye: they won't ALLOW THEMSELVES to "see" it. Jesus even knew about this phenomenon, being frustrated by those who had eyes but could not see. He wasn't referring to their "spiritual eyes", but their physical eyes and ears.
It's an air-tight belief system, and it SHOULD be obvious that groups like the JWs/LDS/RCC are merely MANIFESTATIONS (AKA symptoms) of the SAME underlying condition that lies at the heart of the problem: a belief in Jesus and God.
So Tammy, are you not aware of Jesus performing miracles? What are all those SIGNS that Jesus is said to have provided? Were these miracles designed to support belief in God via FAITH (unseen evidence) or KNOWLEDGE (visible evidence)?
In Mark 8, Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding a massive crowd with a few fish and bread, but Jesus pointed out the FAILURE of miracles (SIGNS, aka VISIBLE evidence) to build FAITH in eyewitnesses, EVEN in HIS OWN APOSTLES who had witnessed TONS of his miracles with their OWN EYES:
14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16 They began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart? 18 “HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember, 19 when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” 20 “When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.” 21 And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”
Jesus was ASKING them to DO THE MATH, verbalizing the miracle that they JUST HAD witnessed with their OWN physical EYES and EARS, but had not understood or internalized, since it clearly hadn't built their FAITH in Jesus to be able to "provide for their daily needs"! They were discussing the FACT (KNOWLEDGE) that they saw with their own eyes that they currently had no bread, yet were anxious that they'd starve! And this, right AFTER WITNESSING Jesus feeding the ENTIRE crowd with their OWN EYES!
Jesus was implying in verse 21 that FAITH does NOT come from witnessing miracles (visible evidence), but FAITH IS built on BELIEVING IN Jesus ability to PERFORM MIRACLES, which Paul continues with Jesus theme by saying FAITH paradoxically comes from NOT WITNESSING signs, seeing visible evidence! That's why Jesus even refused to provide SIGNS from Heaven, earlier in the same Chapter:
Mark 8:11-12
11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
The Pharisees sought to test HIM, seeking a SIGN (visible evidence): Houston, we have a problem, as Jesus doesn't get TESTED (except by his Father)! The request exasperated Jesus DEEPLY, such that he threw up his hands in disgust and said no more signs would be provided.
So your saying that you 'test Jesus' reveals you are thinking like a Pharisee, a Doubting Thomas, AKA someone who is WEAK in their faith.
Of course, it's awfully convenient for Jesus to say that visible evidence is no longer provided to support belief in God, since SIGNS never WERE possible, in the first place.
Cessationists hold that miracles are stopped in modern-times, following the death of the apostles; continuationists disagree, and the disagreement has resulted in a schism in Christianity long ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism
Random errata:
You cannot lead unless you first serve. It sounds like a paradox, but it is a truth.
That demonstrates you're entirely missing the point of a paradox, since I never said it WASN'T based in truth; I SAID paradoxes are designed to appear as illogical and counter-intuitive, until it's resolved away with rationalizations (just as you did with ALL of them).
"And if a man strikes you on one check, turn to him the other check, also."
This is not a paradox.
You fail to understand that the NORMAL human response is to defend oneself when you're assaulted, so turning the cheek is the PARADOXICAL response. Of COURSE it is explained away by citing love for one's fellow man, but you miss the ENTIRE POINT of a paradox: it's SUPPOSED to be counter-intuitive at first glance to grab one's attention.
Adamah: 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 would call it off at the last moment. God didn't TELL him, "OK, this is a TEST of your faith" beforehand. Tammy: Yeah... I don't get your point. Yeah, it's clear you missed the point. Despite being called a prophet, Abraham BY DEFINITION COULDN'T have known that God was TESTING HIS FAITH by ordering him to kill Isaac (i.e. Abraham couldn't KNOW that God would only have him stop at the last moment), since otherwise it wouldn't be a TEST of his FAITH! If Abraham KNEW AHEAD of time that God would say, "STOP!", then that's not a "TEST" of anything, if one KNOWS what the answer WILL be BEFORE the test is given: that's CHEATING, a rigged game, where the 'fix is in' (already KNOWING what the answer WILL BE BEFORE the question is asked, like the game show scandal from the 1950's where contestants were provided the correct answer, since it made for exciting TV). Abraham HAD to proceed with the test, even plunging the knife into Isaac's neck, having FAITH that God would resurrect his dead corpse afterwards. THAT'S the kind of faith required to please Jehovah, per Paul, and God only stopped Abraham from doing killing Isaac after he got the answer he required (although, AGAIN, it makes no sense that an omniscient being has to TEST things, as it should already KNOW future events; God blows his own omniscience traits by testing anything). All prophets know the future events... because they were TOLD or SHOWN them.
NOPE, not so.
You clearly don't understand that the word 'prophet' in the Bible does NOT always refer to someone who has been given the charismatic gift of 'prescience' (foresight, the ability to see or know future events, which is needed to make prophecies and is granted by God to SOME mortals like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, those who's writings constitute the Nevi'im, part of the Tanakh).
I fully expect you to deny that, too, even though it's a KNOWN FACT, even as the example of the prophet Abraham above should show.
He didn't have to act... but it does show that one is allowed to question God, albeit with respect... because of course you could be the one not understanding, and lacking faith in the love that you know God IS, and the promises He has made and taught... if you think to judge Him without even asking Him.
You don't understand that Abraham didn't question an ORDER he was given by God (eg to kill Isaac)? He questioned a policy that didn't personally involve him (i.e. Abraham wasn't ordered to personally kill the Sodomites; the angels were). Instead, Abraham was actually serving as what Hebrews referred to as a go'el, a mediator or redeemer who acted on behalf of others (in this case he didn't even personally know). This was a respected endeavor which was considered honorable, and his example was used to encourage such interventions on bahalf of others. But you completely missed the significance that Abraham is portrayed as playing an honorable role in Hebrew society, which was obvious to anyone who heard the story in the context of ancient Hebraic beliefs in 500BC. What ELSE have you missed?
No, I'm going with an asking questions; testing the inspired expression approach. You know the one that Abraham used... and then later we are TOLD to test the spirit, to see if what was spoken came from God.
"Testing the spirit" directly contradicts the concept of Jesus' chastizing of Pharisees and Doubting Thomas for their lack of FAITH, example of Abraham offering Isaac, etc so resolving that contradiction falls squarely on YOUR shoulders (hint: you'll rationalize it away with SOMETHING that makes sense to you).
The scenario is you're TOLD that killing the person is the "greatest act of love", and YOU have to act on FAITH.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I don't think you heard me. How would that be the greatest act of love? That is a question I would ask, considering all He has taught ABOUT love.
OK, then let's modify the scenario:
Tammy is told by Jesus that she needs to kill a person as an act of "the greatest love" for them (preventing them from committing a great sin that triggers further bloodshed, even a war), AND for the greatest love of others, since the person is planning to self-detonate on a bus loaded with 100 small innocent children. You can prevent this horrible event by killing the person just moments before they board the bus thus preventing major bloodshed, and placing the issue of whether to resurrect the person into God's hands.
So, what do you do? Whatever you call it (FAITH, etc) do you follow Jesus' ORDERS (as any good Christian is expected to do in similar circumstances)? Or do you insist that Jesus pick someone else to do his work, since your FAITH is all about what he does for YOU, and your faith in him just ain't all that real?
(expecting waffles to be served up piping hot, in response.)
Adam
-
tec
Tammy seems to think if she can find ONE example of someone hearing voices to justify it as the basis of FAITH, that's good enough: she's willing to overlook the VASTLY more numerous examples of "men of faith" mentioned in Hebrews who DIDN'T hear a voice or see visions of future events (including Moses' parents, who had no such experience on which to base their FAITH) so she's able to ignore the MANY EXCEPTIONS that disprove her claim.
Good enough for what, exactly?
I'm not overlooking anything. That some heard... perhaps through a dream or a revelation or understanding in spirit and not necessarily words... is still hearing. They still acted on faith in what they KNEW, from God.
That's a classic example of cherry-picking, AKA selection bias, only seeing evidence that you WANT to see, and automatically putting on the blinders for anything that DISPROVES your conclusion (where FAITH is another way of saying, 'shutting down cognition and going with one's feelings and prior beliefs').
And you and some others cannot see that you are doing the very thing that you are accusing me of doing. Or I wouldn't have to point out to you scriptures that disprove something that YOU claim. You would already know them, certainly, since you know the bible so well as an atheist. Right?
That also explains why believers are able to excuse Abraham's rape and forced surrogacy of his slave-girl without so much as blinking an eye: they won't ALLOW THEMSELVES to "see" it. Jesus even knew about this phenomenon, being frustrated by those who had eyes but could not see. He wasn't referring to their "spiritual eyes", but their physical eyes and ears.
You still haven't mentioned any verse that says anything about whether or not Hagar was even displeased about being given to Abraham, to lay with as his wife. The rest is just you seeing what you want to see, to back up what you want to think.
So Tammy, are you not aware of Jesus performing miracles?
Of course.
What are all those SIGNS that Jesus is said to have provided? Were these miracles designed to support belief in God via FAITH (unseen evidence) or KNOWLEDGE (visible evidence)?
Do you recall that those without faith could not be healed? What did he say to the woman in the street... go in peace, your faith has healed you.
The miracles showed the glory and power of God. That might help some put their faith IN God. And spoke as a witness against those who STILL did not put their faith in God, even after being shown. But those who did not want to see that Christ was from God... were blind, and so could not see.
In Mark 8, Jesus had just performed the miracle of feeding a massive crowd with a few fish and bread, but Jesus pointed out the FAILURE of miracles (SIGNS, aka VISIBLE evidence) to build FAITH in eyewitnesses, EVEN in HIS OWN APOSTLES who had witnessed TONS of his miracles with their OWN EYES:
14 And they had forgotten to take bread, and did not have more than one loaf in the boat with them. 15 And He was giving orders to them, saying, “Watch out! Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.” 16 They began to discuss with one another the fact that they had no bread. 17 And Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you discuss the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet see or understand? Do you have a hardened heart?18 “HAVING EYES, DO YOU NOT SEE? AND HAVING EARS, DO YOU NOT HEAR? And do you not remember, 19 when I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” 20 “When I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of broken pieces did you pick up?” And they said to Him, “Seven.” 21 And He was saying to them, “Do you not yet understand?”
Jesus was ASKING them to DO THE MATH, verbalizing the miracle that they JUST HAD witnessed with their OWN physical EYES and EARS, but had not understood or internalized, since it clearly hadn't built their FAITH in Jesus to be able to "provide for their daily needs"! They were discussing the FACT (KNOWLEDGE) that they saw with their own eyes that they currently had no bread, yet were anxious that they'd starve! And this, right AFTER WITNESSING Jesus feeding the ENTIRE crowd with their OWN EYES!
Yes, that was a lack of faith on their behalf. Not sure why you'd think I would have anything to argue on this point.
Jesus was implying in verse 21 that FAITH does NOT come from witnessing miracles (visible evidence), but FAITH IS built on BELIEVING IN Jesus ability to PERFORM MIRACLES, which Paul continues with Jesus theme by saying FAITH paradoxically comes from NOT WITNESSING signs, seeing visible evidence! That's why Jesus even refused to provide SIGNS from Heaven, earlier in the same Chapter:
Faith does not come from witnessing miracles. Though it might make some who are seeking take a second look. It also bears witness against those who refused to see, even when shown.
Faith is built upon truth. Kept promises, etc, truth heard, etc; love. In and of the One God.
Mark 8:11-12
11 The Pharisees came out and began to argue with Him, seeking from Him a sign from heaven, to test Him. 12 Sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, “Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
The Pharisees sought to test HIM, seeking a SIGN (visible evidence): Houston, we have a problem, as Jesus doesn't get TESTED (except by his Father)! The request exasperated Jesus DEEPLY, such that he threw up his hands in disgust and said no more signs would be provided.
They sought to trip Him up. They asked for a sign, to disprove Him, as they had NO faith.
We discussed this earlier.
Sort of like the t-shirt test that kept being asked about on jwn for a while.
So your saying that you 'test Jesus' reveals you are thinking like a Pharisee, a Doubting Thomas, AKA someone who is WEAK in their faith.
Test what is heard. Not the same thing as what the pharisees did. I'm not asking for a sign. I never have. How would I even recognize a sign from a coincidence? I, personally, would not. I also recognize His voice, by the love IN it, and so that if something was not from love, I would know that it was not Him. (my sheep hear my voice, and will run from a stranger's voice) And if someone else shared something that they said was from Him, which is what I am really speaking about... then certainly I can and should test that... though sometimes I recognize Him in it right away. But otherwise, if I am not sure, I can ask Him (so test what someone else has shared against Him); I can test it against love (is it OF love), and I can also test it against what is written.
You continue to ignore that we are TOLD to test the inspired expressions. TOLD to do so. Why do you do that? Do you not SEE that verse?
Of course, it's awfully convenient for Jesus to say that visible evidence is no longer provided to support belief in God, since SIGNS never WERE possible, in the first place.
If that is what you think, then what are you even talking about?
Random errata:
You cannot lead unless you first serve. It sounds like a paradox, but it is a truth.
That demonstrates you're entirely missing the point of a paradox, since I never said it WASN'T based in truth; I SAID paradoxes are designed to appear as illogical and counter-intuitive, until it's resolved away with rationalizations (just as you did with ALL of them).
I was commenting; not necessarily disagreeing... though not all the things you listed were paradox. And yes, these things can help one to reexamine what they BELEIVE to be true, when held up in such opposition to what is ACTUALLY true.
Adamah: 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 would call it off at the last moment. God didn't TELL him, "OK, this is a TEST of your faith" beforehand. Tammy: Yeah... I don't get your point.
Yeah, it's clear you missed the point.
Despite being called a prophet, Abraham BY DEFINITION COULDN'T have known that God was TESTING HIS FAITH by ordering him to kill Isaac (i.e. Abraham couldn't KNOW that God would only have him stop at the last moment), since otherwise it wouldn't be a TEST of his FAITH! If Abraham KNEW AHEAD of time that God would say, "STOP!", then that's not a "TEST" of anything, if one KNOWS what the answer WILL be BEFORE the test is given: that's CHEATING, a rigged game, where the 'fix is in' (already KNOWING what the answer WILL BE BEFORE the question is asked, like the game show scandal from the 1950's where contestants were provided the correct answer, since it made for exciting TV).
Abraham HAD to proceed with the test, even plunging the knife into Isaac's neck, having FAITH that God would resurrect his dead corpse afterwards. THAT'S the kind of faith required to please Jehovah, per Paul, and God only stopped Abraham from doing killing Isaac after he got the answer he required (although, AGAIN, it makes no sense that an omniscient being has to TEST things, as it should already KNOW future events; God blows his own omniscience traits by testing anything).
Maybe you should read Job. And Abraham did prophesize... he is the one who said that God would provide the sacrifice, and God DID. Then... and later.
All prophets know the future events... because they were TOLD or SHOWN them.
NOPE, not so.
You clearly don't understand that the word 'prophet' in the Bible does NOT always refer to someone who has been given the charismatic gift of 'prescience' (foresight, the ability to see or know future events, which is needed to make prophecies and is granted by God to SOME mortals like Isaiah, Ezekiel, etc, those who's writings constitute the Nevi'im, part of the Tanakh).
It isn't foresight... it is hearing and seeing what they have been shown. A prophet... prophesizes. That is kind of stright-forward.
Tell me, if you will, because I am curious and could be overlooking something. I'm certainly not perfect. What prophet has not prophesized something?
He didn't have to act... but it does show that one is allowed to question God, albeit with respect... because of course you could be the one not understanding, and lacking faith in the love that you know God IS, and the promises He has made and taught... if you think to judge Him without even asking Him.
You don't understand that Abraham didn't question an ORDER he was given by God (eg to kill Isaac)? He questioned a policy that didn't personally involve him (i.e. Abraham wasn't ordered to personally kill the Sodomites; the angels were).
You are missing the point that one is allowed to question.
Instead, Abraham was actually serving as what Hebrews referred to as a go'el, a mediator or redeemer who acted on behalf of others (in this case he didn't even personally know). This was a respected endeavor which was considered honorable, and his example was used to encourage such interventions on bahalf of others.
Well, not 'instead'... but certainly this as well. Absolutely. That is what Christ did. Asked forgiveness for those who wronged Him. Moses did the same, pleading for the Israelites. It is also what we should do... rather than hope for an 'enemy's' demise.
But you completely missed the significance that Abraham is portrayed as playing an honorable role in Hebrew society, which was obvious to anyone who heard the story in the context of ancient Hebraic beliefs in 500BC. What ELSE have you missed?
I didn't miss it at all. There is just more meaning to be taken from it. That is something you have missed.
No, I'm going with an asking questions; testing the inspired expression approach. You know the one that Abraham used... and then later we are TOLD to test the spirit, to see if what was spoken came from God.
"Testing the spirit" directly contradicts the concept of Jesus' chastizing of Pharisees and Doubting Thomas for their lack of FAITH, example of Abraham offering Isaac, etc so resolving that contradiction falls squarely on YOUR shoulders (hint: you'll rationalize it away with SOMETHING that makes sense to you).
Explained above.
The scenario is you're TOLD that killing the person is the "greatest act of love", and YOU have to act on FAITH.
Yeah, I heard you the first time. I don't think you heard me. How would that be the greatest act of love? That is a question I would ask, considering all He has taught ABOUT love.
OK, then let's modify the scenario:
Tammy is told by Jesus that she needs to kill a person as an act of "the greatest love" for them (preventing them from committing a great sin that triggers further bloodshed, even a war), AND for the greatest love of others, since the person is planning to self-detonate on a bus loaded with 100 small innocent children. You can prevent this horrible event by killing the person just moments before they board the bus thus preventing major bloodshed, and placing the issue of whether to resurrect the person into God's hands.
So, what do you do? Whatever you call it (FAITH, etc) do you follow Jesus' ORDERS (as any good Christian is expected to do in similar circumstances)? Or do you insist that Jesus pick someone else to do his work, since your FAITH is all about what he does for YOU, and your faith in him just ain't all that real?
(expecting waffles to be served up piping hot, in response.)
He doesn't ask things like that of us... though this is a scenario taken right out of one of those 'moral dilemma' thingies ; )
I'm sure that tactic was used by religious leaders though... in getting people to go and fight and kill in the name of God and Christ, in order to save lives from murderers.
But we are not to pass judgment on others. That would be passing judgment.
(a greater act of love for that person would be to try and talk them out of it, or perhaps report it to those who could stop him beforehand, btw; detaining the guy, jumping on him and giving your own life, etc... not kill him/her; to warn him and others, and if no one heeded that warning, then that is on them... and the man who did the killing; and before you say, well there is no time for that; well, that is not a realistic scenario... none of these moral dilemma tests ever are)
Love has no greater act than this: that one lay down one's own life for another.
So your scenario could not BE the greatest act of love, could it? That has already been done, and Christ did not kill anyone. He can't command that we follow Him... and then tell us to do something that is against what He did and taught.
Peace,
tammy
-
cofty
But we are not to pass judgment on others. That would be passing judgment. - Tammy
Thank you for a perfect tautology.
-
tec
The 'that' referred to something specific, not the sentence directly before it.
But we are not to pass judgment on others. That (doing what Adamah has presented in his scenario) would be passing judgment.
Peace,
tammy
-
cofty
Well when you take 2000 words to make a point it's not surprising somebody misunderstands it.
Are you aware you talk in metaphors all the time?
Once you look out for it you will notice that you never say anything literal. It's a defense technique that christians use so they can never be held to account for anything they say.
After a while they stop noticing.
-
tec
I'm not blaming you for misunderstanding. Grammatically, "that" (or 'it', 'they', 'he', 'she', etc, ) should refer to the subject or person that came immediately before. I'm glad you pointed it out so I could clarify.
And I'm responding to more than 2000 words, lol... so, sometimes I miss the point too.
I also say plenty of literal things, so that is an untrue statement you have made about me. You can totally hold me accountable for what I say. By all means.
Peace,
tammy