The Nature Of Faith

[duderonomy]

May I add "Biblical" as a qualifier to faith?  The difference between Biblical faith and wishful thinking is this...

 

By wishful thinking, I'm driving a dark blue 2015 Mustang GT along the coast in Southern California. FTNZ and Margee are in the car, one turning up the volume as "Radar Love" comes on the stereo and the other handing me an ice cold Pepsi. I'm free from speed limits and a mystery benefactor is picking up the tab for all expenses on my way to the Playboy Mansion, where I'll live young and handsome forever and ever with a billion of my closest friends.

 

By Biblical faith, I think this is really happening to me.

[2PhiloVoid]

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

 

What separates faith from wishful thinking?

 

Hi Penguin,

 

Good question.

 

As I began thinking about what separates Faith from Wishful Thinking, what came to my mind first was the important realization that we have to have some kind of notion as to ‘how’ we might objectively delineate these two concepts. More often than not, more than a comparison of dictionary definitions will be required.

 

While these two ideas may seem synonymous to some people, I think we should probably pay attention to the fact that one of these concepts can be delineated just fine without any kind of reference to the bible.  For instance, I might like to eat a cupcake or donut everyday (because they taste good), and while doing so, I can also entertain, build up, and emotionally reinforce the belief that cupcakes and donuts can truly be a part of a nutritiously balanced diet. Obviously, we don’t need a literary text to delude us into ‘cupcake or donut frenzy’; our taste-buds provide most of the delusive power. Unfortunately, it will probably take more than the bible to release us from our Wishful Thinking about such food-born delectations.

 

By contrast, the other concept, that of Faith, really requires that we at least resource the bible in order to form a relevant understanding as to what a trust in God amounts to. I think we can both agree that without recourse to the Bible, we will just be making up our own ideas about what faith could be.

 

Additionally, we could add a third delineation, which would be represented by an atheistic interpolation of Christian faith (i.e. that it’s “really” just a form of unjustified belief).  But even then, this can really only be considered AFTER having come to the conclusion that the bible is what provides a cogent access point for the conception of Christian faith, even though we know that atheists will then conclude that it is all historical and religious bunk.

 

Therefore, Christian Faith is different from Wishful Thinking in that we need the bible to help us define faith; we only need our own imagination for Wishful Thinking. While I realize this may be a very minor point to begin with, and it is, it is nevertheless a conceptually objective qualifier.

 

Not only does Faith differ from Wishful Thinking in that we require the bible to aid our understanding of what faith could mean, but we should probably also realize that Wishful Thinking has very little in the way of cultural, literary, historical, linguistic conventions ruling over its human manifestations; it for the most part is an individual, and individually idiosyncratic, outcome of personal desires or needs. Yes, one’s living in a particular cultural environment may help to shape what kind of Wishful Thinking takes place in a person’s brain, but it will still be Wishful Thinking, above and beyond what is considered the norm for that culture. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be identifiable as Wishful Thinking.

 

Faith, on the other hand, has to be dug out from the ancient literary and cultural depths and contexts in which it is embedded and buried—we can’t whimsically cite and read a single, biblical verse in modern English and then decide that we know what Faith means, the insinuations of Peter Boghossian (2013) notwithstanding. Sure, I know a lot of Christians today  are under the impression that they have the ‘right’ to arbitrarily slap open the bible and thrust their Egos upon the Sacred text, but their doing so doesn’t necessitate a recognition by all other parties that an adequate understanding of Christian Faith has actually been achieved. Rather, those Christians just demonstrate the levels of personal bravado that can be expressed when given enough freedom to do so. Maybe they are exhibiting a form of Wishful Thinking, but it wouldn’t by necessity be due to their having a solid understanding of the contents of the bible.

 

Which takes us then to Hebrews 11:1.

 

11:1  Ἔστιν δὲ πίστις ἐλπιζομένων ὑπόστασις, πραγμάτων ἔλεγχος οὐ βλεπομένων·

 

But, is this verse alone enough for us to understand what Christian Faith is? I think not.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

Boghossian, Peter (2013). A Manual For Creating Atheists.  Durham, NC:  Pitchstone Publishing.

[mymistake]

But wasn't "sacred text" wishful thinking on the day it was first written?  I will grant you that today it is steeped in old culture.  But on the day it was written it was in rebellion against the established culture of its day.  Who knows what wishful thinking today might become faith a millennia from now?

 

I presume that your argument applies to all sacred text for any religion.  So Muslim and Hindu faith differs from wishful thinking in the same way Christian faith does.  If that was not what you meant please clarify.

[2PhiloVoid]

But wasn't "sacred text" wishful thinking on the day it was first written?  I will grant you that today it is steeped in old culture.  But on the day it was written it was in rebellion against the established culture of its day.  Who knows what wishful thinking today might become faith a millennia from now?

 

I presume that your argument applies to all sacred text for any religion.  So Muslim and Hindu faith differs from wishful thinking in the same way Christian faith does.  If that was not what you meant please clarify.

 

Hi MM,

 

That’s an interesting twist to ponder, and you have a point. The bible wasn’t always around. There was a time, a “day,” in which some person, or persons—let’s assume they were Hebraic/Canaanite in nature--looked out across the landscape of cultural cosmogonies and…of all things…disagreed with the collective metaphysical assertions of the presiding Mesopotamian/Babylonian and Egyptian cultures (Hyers, 1984).

 

I agree with you that Wishful Thinking could have played a role of some kind in the origination of early biblical concepts, or at least in its first oral fabrications, but the cogency of your premise will depend on whether or not we can really see the concept of “rebellion” as just another form of Wishful Thinking. Is it?

 

And is this conceptual direction where you really want to take this discussion? If it is, there may be reconsiderations to make; there may be implications for how we view any kind of socially Reformative thoughts or Revolutionary ideals, and you will also likely need to concede to them so as to remain consistent with the insinuations of your initial statement about “Rebellion.”

 

As to your second, added point, my initial argument could also apply to all sacred texts of any religion, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the concepts of ‘faith’ evident in the Qu’ran, or in the Upanishads and Mahabharata, or the Tao Te Ching, or the Dhammapda, for instance, are equal. But, that is another discussion, and I’m not inclined to discuss it in this thread because that will take us unnecessarily adrift, away from a focus on Christian Faith, which is what Penguin seems to have alluded to in the first post.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

Hyers, Conrad. (1984). The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

[mymistake]

 

But wasn't "sacred text" wishful thinking on the day it was first written?  I will grant you that today it is steeped in old culture.  But on the day it was written it was in rebellion against the established culture of its day.  Who knows what wishful thinking today might become faith a millennia from now?

 

I presume that your argument applies to all sacred text for any religion.  So Muslim and Hindu faith differs from wishful thinking in the same way Christian faith does.  If that was not what you meant please clarify.

 

Hi MM,

 

That’s an interesting twist to ponder, and you have a point. The bible wasn’t always around. There was a time, a “day,” in which some person, or persons—let’s assume they were Hebraic/Canaanite in nature--looked out across the landscape of cultural cosmogonies and…of all things…disagreed with the collective metaphysical assertions of the presiding Mesopotamian/Babylonian and Egyptian cultures (Hyers, 1984).

 

I agree with you that Wishful Thinking could have played a role of some kind in the origination of early biblical concepts, or at least in its first oral fabrications, but the cogency of your premise will depend on whether or not we can really see the concept of “rebellion” as just another form of Wishful Thinking. Is it?

 

And is this conceptual direction where you really want to take this discussion? If it is, there may be reconsiderations to make; there may be implications for how we view any kind of socially Reformative thoughts or Revolutionary ideals, and you will also likely need to concede to them so as to remain consistent with the insinuations of your initial statement about “Rebellion.”

 

As to your second, added point, my initial argument could also apply to all sacred texts of any religion, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the concepts of ‘faith’ evident in the Qu’ran, or in the Upanishads and Mahabharata, or the Tao Te Ching, or the Dhammapda, for instance, are equal. But, that is another discussion, and I’m not inclined to discuss it in this thread because that will take us unnecessarily adrift, away from a focus on Christian Faith, which is what Penguin seems to have alluded to in the first post.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

Hyers, Conrad. (1984). The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science. Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press.

 

 

 

You are separating wishful thinking from Christian faith by a trivial difference.  It makes a better fit if Christianity is a subset of religion which is a subset of wishful thinking.

 

You need to demonstrate an empirical difference between the Christian religion and the other religions to avoid the special pleading fallacy.  Perhaps the right variety of Christianity needs to be separated from all the wrong ones as well.

 

We see new religions come along from time to time.  Mormonism and Scientology are two good examples of religions that are starting to grow in strength.  Yet the day they were invented they were treated as crazy cults due to how they flew in the face of mainstream religion at the time.  This is the nature of religion.  It would have been the same when Gnostic sects first peddled Jesus.

 

However parts of the Bible are older than Jesus.  The stories started out from Canaanite polytheism and later had to be revised during the monotheism purge.  Talk about rebellion.   Hunting down all the shrines to the rest of the gods and destroying them was certainly overturning the pervious ways.  And of course bloodshed had to follow.  Religious violence tends to follow changing religions views.

[mymistake]

Just to follow up, today we see the emerging church.  Christians with older faith tend to look upon it as bastardized or a false gospel.

 

But only a few years before that we had the prosperity gospel and Televangelists.

 

Before that it was the evangelists such as Billy Graham who were filling up stadiums.

 

Before that was the introduction of Assemblies of God.

 

. . . the birth of Christian fundamentalism.

 

. . . the Christian prohibition movement.

 

. . . divisions over American slavery.

 

. . . the end of the inquisitions and witch hunts.  (Now that was a badly needed revolution!)

 

. . . the Christian expansions under colonial imperialism.

 

Further back the Protestants split from Rome.

 

. . . Orthodox and Catholics split.

 

. . . the Crusades.

 

. . . a series of formative councils where Rome worked out what it wanted to do with Christianity.

 

Further back Rome reinvents Christianity based on a blend of various existing religious sects.

 

Before that there were numerous authors who wrote all the third century non-conical scriptures.

 

Before that late New Testament authors modified the stories written by the first group of New Testament authors.

 

Before that it was Paul blending gnosticism with a blood cult.

 

Before that it was the author of Thomas creating the Jesus story.

 

Before that it was the Dead Sea Scroll sect reinventing Judaism.

 

Before that Jesus Ben Sirach was reinventing Judaism

 

Before that is was Ezra weaving together the Old Testament.

 

And of course we can go further back with educated guessing.

 

Who had the right Christian faith?

 

If you look at all of them you can see the pattern of wishful thinking.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Good discussion, MM and Philo. Philo, I don’t want to draw your attention away from a response to MM’s excellent points, but I had some similar ideas to what MM raised, and would certainly like to see your thoughts on this. Probably in answering MM you will be answering my own concerns as well.

 

MM, I think you raise the right point here. There’s nothing about Christian Faith that differentiates it from Wishful Thinking except that it is supposedly based on the bible—or rather a “solid understanding of the contents of the Bible”—as opposed to being based on imagination or a haphazard approach to the bible or some other standard.

 

Philo, you’ve admitted to me that the bible isn’t wholly infallible or inerrant or reliable (at least by modern standards). Yet here you say that Faith must be based on this same bible. And yet this has nothing to do with Wishful Thinking. This is quite puzzling.

 

Sure, the Christian Faith is (more or less loosely) based on the bible, and this is certainly a “qualifier” to categorize Christian faith from other brands of faith. But, as MM points out, there’s no reason for us to suppose that the bible is anything more than the written imaginations of some old guys from the past, redacted and edited numerous times in accordance with the imaginations of different old guys from the past. And subsequently the text is studied, read, and interpreted in accordance with the imaginations, desires, and needs of a given community or individual.

 

Nothing here addresses the point of the reliability of the bible, only its supposed authority. So if the nature of faith has anything to do with evidence (does it?), shouldn’t we examine the reliability of the evidence to check the validity of our faith? Otherwise, aren’t we just engaging in Christian Wishful Thinking, aka Faith?

 

It seems to me that a version of Faith based on a book that isn’t reliable is nothing more than Wishful Thinking of the Highest Sort. When I pressed this point before, Philo, you said that the bible must be understood in light of the culture, history, language, knowledge, of the times it was written, and this is a key to proper interpretation. (At least that’s how I understood you.) Surely you understand that one can have all the knowledge of the culture, language, history, philosophy, science, literature, everything, even the very inner thoughts and motives, of the biblical authors and editors, and use this knowledge to interpret the words they wrote—but this knowledge will never make a falsehood true.

 

If I presented a paper on some topic in an attempt to persuade my audience to accept my position, and my paper was full of mistakes, fables, inconsistencies, contradictions, outright lies, manipulative threats—how much faith would you put in my arguments? How persuasive would I be? What if my defense consisted of, “Well, it’s written in accordance with a certain culture, history, language, knowledge, that didn’t put much stock in facts or reason, so you will need to laboriously dig into that cultural understanding in order come to the light”? Wouldn’t you laugh me out of the lecture hall?

 

I’m just at a loss to see how this noticeably differs from Wishful Thinking. It sure looks pretty much the same from where I stand—Faith based on an imagination focused on an unreliable text; as opposed to faith based on an imagination focused on dreams and visions and golden plates or whatever else people use to invent new gods and/or dogmas for humanity.

 

But what do I know? Good to see you again—take nothing here as a personal attack, I mean it all in good-will and in the interests of great discussion.

[♦ ficino ♦]

The usual Catholic approach is to say that through natural reason, one can reach the Church as the conduit of God's revelation. From there, one needs to receive her teachings by faith.

 

(they don't deny grace, of course, in this process... )

 

The Bible is perhaps best described as the chief element in Tradition, but never "sola." Tradition roughly includes teachings of Jesus that never made it into the canonical writings but were preserved by the early christians, and the understanding of the overall teachings, in light of which the written documents are interpreted. E.g. Catholics would say that the church believed in the Real Presence in the eucharist, and was celebrating eucharists, maybe two generations before the gospels were written, so any interpretation of the eucharist as a mere memorial was never held, and is wrong from the start.

 

Unlike some Calvinists and others who hold that miracles ceased once the canon was closed, Catholics (Orthodox and others as well) have always held that God causes miracles today, both from his mercy and to substantiate revelation as true.

 

So, why am I not a Catholic anymore? I found reason to conclude that the religious claims are not true.

 

Still, Philo, it's difficult to see what is the context of your claims about the importance of the Bible for faith. Do you hold to "sola scriptura" and advise people to derive doctrine by themselves from the bible, assisted by scholarly reconstructions of the language and culture of the writers? That seems even weaker than the Catholic approach.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

The usual Catholic approach is to say that through natural reason, one can reach the Church as the conduit of God's revelation. From there, one needs to receive her teachings by faith.

 

(they don't deny grace, of course, in this process... )

 

The Bible is perhaps best described as the chief element in Tradition, but never "sola." Tradition roughly includes teachings of Jesus that never made it into the canonical writings but were preserved by the early christians, and the understanding of the overall teachings, in light of which the written documents are interpreted. E.g. Catholics would say that the church believed in the Real Presence in the eucharist, and was celebrating eucharists, maybe two generations before the gospels were written, so any interpretation of the eucharist as a mere memorial was never held, and is wrong from the start.

 

Unlike some Calvinists and others who hold that miracles ceased once the canon was closed, Catholics (Orthodox and others as well) have always held that God causes miracles today, both from his mercy and to substantiate revelation as true.

 

So, why am I not a Catholic anymore? I found reason to conclude that the religious claims are not true.

 

Still, Philo, it's difficult to see what is the context of your claims about the importance of the Bible for faith. Do you hold to "sola scriptura" and advise people to derive doctrine by themselves from the bible, assisted by scholarly reconstructions of the language and culture of the writers? That seems even weaker than the Catholic approach.

 

Yes, this is just it. Each move I made in my religious life I made in search of some dependable, objective measure by which to understand the bible. I saw the weakness of the independent, rabidly non-confessional sola approach of fundamentalism (I call the MUSAYGA approach: Making Up Shit As You Go Along) so I sought out a more confessional tradition and wound up Reformed. I thought that the (theoretically) more cohesive confessional quality of Calvinism removed some subjectivity. Still sola scriptura and individualistic, but at least there was a confessional standard and "tradition" of sorts to use as a hermeneutical measure, as opposed to using my personal speculations, needs, desires, to interpret the bible.

 

For me even that fell short and I found myself Orthodox--no sola, far more tradition and confessional history, as well as a (purportedly) conciliar approach to the faith that at the time seemed to remove some of the subjectivity I found so troubling.

 

Obviously the Orthodox approach to faith (which is so similar to the RC approach) fell short for me as well, because I realized faith needed to be held to the same standard of evidence as any other knowledge; and when I applied ordinary standards of evidence to the bible as well as to the wider tradition in which the bible is set, like you I "found reason to conclude that the religious claims are not true."

 

One cannot separate questions of "faith" from questions of evidence and reliability of information. Faith based on good evidence and high probabilities is far from Wishful Thinking, tending toward what we might call "knowledge." Faith based on poorly constructed evidence, improbabilities, or outright falsehoods is Wishful Thinking. To me, it's as simple as that.

 

I know Philo is against using Heb. 11:1 as a definition of faith, but it at least must factor into a Christian definition of faith, yes? It must at least be a place to start, I would think. "Now faith is _______ " seems as close to a Christian definition of faith as anything else we might come up with.

 

Faith based on some kind of assurance of hope or conviction of unseen things (how vague is that!) is different from Wishful Thinking how? Where is the good evidence that elevates Faith above Wishful Thinking? Mere assurance or conviction that the bible writers and editors hinted at the truth, buried deep under layers of falsehood, mistakes, threats, contradiction? A private speculation that the way I hope things should be are the way things actually are? Like you, ficino, I fail to see how including "scholarly reconstructions of the language and culture of the writers" strengthens the argument for Christian faith.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Good stuff, StJeff.

 

There seems to be an attempt in scripture to say that faith is based on evidence.

 

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

John 21:24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.

 

Deuteronomy 4:36 Out of heaven he made thee to hear his voice, that he might instruct thee: and upon earth he shewed thee his great fire; and thou heardest his words out of the midst of the fire.

 

this refers to the event at Mt. Sinai, when all Israel stood before God:

 

Exodus 20:18-19 All the people perceived the thunder and the lightning flashes and the sound of the trumpet and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled and stood at a distance. 19Then they said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen; but let not God speak to us, or we will die."…

 

 

As far as I know, the above actually are cunningly devised fables.

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

Good stuff, StJeff.

 

There seems to be an attempt in scripture to say that faith is based on evidence.

 

[. . .]

 

As far as I know, the above actually are cunningly devised fables.

 

Indeed! Let's continue to add to the definition of faith found in Heb 11:

 

Paul says that "faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Rom. 10:17)

 

He also said "we walk by faith, not by sight." (2 Cor. 5:7)

 

So it seems that for Christian Faith, our sight is not to be trusted, but our hearing is. Believe what you're told, not what you see (or don't see)?

 

This is in keeping with what one finds in the whole of the bible--evidence based on hearsay and appeals to authority. It's just not good enough, not in our day when we've grown beyond the superstition and threats that once ruled our lives.

[♦ ficino ♦]

This is one of the things that convinced me that the "they would not have died for what they knew was a lie, so the apostles must have told the truth about the resurrection" argument is a crock. The most STUPENDOUS, MOMENTOUS, IMPORTANT event in all of history... and the only access to it is through contradictory writings of almost 2000 years ago, which themselves appeal to the testimony of a small group of people who are not the writers!

 

Well, God chose the foolish things of the world to confound the wise.

 

OK.

 

I guess Judaism and Christianity must be true, because, unlike polytheistic religions, they don't extol wisdom. Instead they tell you to shut up and do and believe what some rabbi/preacher says. Ask for evidence and you're told you are evil to ask.

[2PhiloVoid]

Good discussion, MM and Philo. Philo, I don’t want to draw your attention away from a response to MM’s excellent points, but I had some similar ideas to what MM raised, and would certainly like to see your thoughts on this. Probably in answering MM you will be answering my own concerns as well.

 

MM, I think you raise the right point here. There’s nothing about Christian Faith that differentiates it from Wishful Thinking except that it is supposedly based on the bible—or rather a “solid understanding of the contents of the Bible”—as opposed to being based on imagination or a haphazard approach to the bible or some other standard.

 

Philo, you’ve admitted to me that the bible isn’t wholly infallible or inerrant or reliable (at least by modern standards). Yet here you say that Faith must be based on this same bible. And yet this has nothing to do with Wishful Thinking. This is quite puzzling.

 

Sure, the Christian Faith is (more or less loosely) based on the bible, and this is certainly a “qualifier” to categorize Christian faith from other brands of faith. But, as MM points out, there’s no reason for us to suppose that the bible is anything more than the written imaginations of some old guys from the past, redacted and edited numerous times in accordance with the imaginations of different old guys from the past. And subsequently the text is studied, read, and interpreted in accordance with the imaginations, desires, and needs of a given community or individual.

 

Nothing here addresses the point of the reliability of the bible, only its supposed authority. So if the nature of faith has anything to do with evidence (does it?), shouldn’t we examine the reliability of the evidence to check the validity of our faith? Otherwise, aren’t we just engaging in Christian Wishful Thinking, aka Faith?

 

It seems to me that a version of Faith based on a book that isn’t reliable is nothing more than Wishful Thinking of the Highest Sort. When I pressed this point before, Philo, you said that the bible must be understood in light of the culture, history, language, knowledge, of the times it was written, and this is a key to proper interpretation. (At least that’s how I understood you.) Surely you understand that one can have all the knowledge of the culture, language, history, philosophy, science, literature, everything, even the very inner thoughts and motives, of the biblical authors and editors, and use this knowledge to interpret the words they wrote—but this knowledge will never make a falsehood true.

 

If I presented a paper on some topic in an attempt to persuade my audience to accept my position, and my paper was full of mistakes, fables, inconsistencies, contradictions, outright lies, manipulative threats—how much faith would you put in my arguments? How persuasive would I be? What if my defense consisted of, “Well, it’s written in accordance with a certain culture, history, language, knowledge, that didn’t put much stock in facts or reason, so you will need to laboriously dig into that cultural understanding in order come to the light”? Wouldn’t you laugh me out of the lecture hall?

 

I’m just at a loss to see how this noticeably differs from Wishful Thinking. It sure looks pretty much the same from where I stand—Faith based on an imagination focused on an unreliable text; as opposed to faith based on an imagination focused on dreams and visions and golden plates or whatever else people use to invent new gods and/or dogmas for humanity.

 

But what do I know? Good to see you again—take nothing here as a personal attack, I mean it all in good-will and in the interests of great discussion.

 

Hey StJeff,

 

Good to see you again. I notice you and Facino have been 'going to town' with some very interesting inquiry.

 

Although I'd love to respond, at the moment I'm in a discussion with Duderonomy, so I'll have to come back to you and Facino on this in a few days (or so.)

 

Sorry, but I'll get to it when I can. You brought up some excellent points that I need to address for clarity.

 

Peace,

2PhiloVoid

[♦ ficino ♦]

Dude, it's Ficino, as in Marsilio.

[2PhiloVoid]

Dude, it's Ficino, as in Marsilio.

 

Yeah....I see that. Sorry for the typo, Ficino.

[Guest Furball]

(There is no) Goddamnit, i was reading through all these posts and just as it was getting down to the real nitty gritty, the xtian bails out again. You can't have 2 conversations at once? 

 

St Jeff, great posts. Way to call out christ-insanity and its b.s. I hope he does keep his word and comeback to answer your last post. I would love to see his reply. Great use of logic and reasoning, which according to martin luther, is the enemy of faith. -Cat

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

I appreciate the kind words, CC. Don't over-rate my logic or reasoning abilities, though. I'll let you down every time.

 

Philo has always been respectful and conversational with me, so I prefer to cut him some slack. Maybe I'm just a Tame Lion, but I don't think he intends to bail and I'd like to give him the ample time he deems necessary to form his response. Seriously, the Lions here are no slouches when it comes to objections to Christianity--I know I'd be pretty cautious if I was a Christian here with the Lions on the prowl!

 

His position, if I understand it correctly, seems untenable and almost incoherent. The bible is necessary for Faith, yet the bible is errant, fallible, and unreliable. However, the right experts can put their scholarship to use in boiling off the dross and leaving the Christian with the pure gold of the True Faith. But of course, one must have some standard of measure to know who the right experts are.

 

What are we going to use as a measure--the bible? No, that's already admitted to be unreliable. The consensus of the "Fathers," or the community of believers? No, there are tens of thousands of differing ideas about the Faith. No consensus exists, even amongst the very writers/editors of the bible itself. My own preferences, or Wishful Thinkings? I don't see what else is left. I just don't see how the final argument amounts to much more than, "I believe it in my heart." And that, let's be honest, is the answer to end all questions. Who can argue with that? Then again, who can be convinced by it? It's a non-argument, vague, slippery, shadowy, and pretty much impervious to any objection.

 

Anyway, it's going to take some work to try to clarify all of this without getting in deeper, and I think Philo, being a very smart feller, is well aware of it. I'm sincerely interested in his responses, and I think I can see him sincerely weighing our objections to his points and trying to figure out how best to cautiously respond so as not to get caught in a snare. I can respect that, even if I think he's wrong.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I see only three roads open to try to justify faith-based claims:

 

1. the natural theology/evidentialist apologetic

2. TAG or something like it

3. appeal to mystical experience

 

 

A massive revaluation of Christianity's tenets would still need to answer the "why should I believe that?" question, leading back to 1-3 above.

 

there may be a fourth way, which I'm not seeing. One might say, "This is our ancestral tradition; if you're part of the tribe/nation/people, it's your tradition and you keep it to stay in the group." That person just tries to dismiss appeals for justification as irrelevant. This may work for religious traditions, the beginnings of which are so ancient we can't see them, but it's hard to attach it to Christianity, which trumpets its opposition to the then-existing traditions from its very foundation.

[florduh]

Therefore, Christian Faith is different from Wishful Thinking in that we need the bible to help us define faith; we only need our own imagination for Wishful Thinking.

 

Somehow I find this statement rather humorous since the Bible also sprung from imagination. Someone imagined some rules to imaginative wishful thinking!

[duderonomy]

 

Dude, it's Ficino, as in Marsilio.

 

Yeah....I see that. Sorry for the typo, Ficino.

 

Twice is not a typo. Be honest, Philo. 

 

What I really want to say is that I'd rather you continue your discussion here with Fitchna and StBernard, even if it means putting our discussion on hold. After all, there I brought up one verse, and in your reply, you went everywhere but to the point, and I've yet to see part two, where you promise to get to the verse I "hollowed out" from the book of James. 

 

Philo, it seems that you have limited time to spend here, and some, like myself check in almost every day. I understand that. But I can wait. I can tell you tomorrow what I can tell you today, your Bible doesn't work.  The stuff you peeps were saying here is far more interesting. Just sayin'

[2PhiloVoid]

 

 

Dude, it's Ficino, as in Marsilio.

 

Yeah....I see that. Sorry for the typo, Ficino.

 

Twice is not a typo. Be honest, Philo. 

 

What I really want to say is that I'd rather you continue your discussion here with Fitchna and StBernard, even if it means putting our discussion on hold. After all, there I brought up one verse, and in your reply, you went everywhere but to the point, and I've yet to see part two, where you promise to get to the verse I "hollowed out" from the book of James. 

 

Philo, it seems that you have limited time to spend here, and some, like myself check in almost every day. I understand that. But I can wait. I can tell you tomorrow what I can tell you today, your Bible doesn't work.  The stuff you peeps were saying here is far more interesting. Just sayin'

 

 

Hey Dude,

 

After my having been away for a few days, the Lions have become hungry. Obviously, you guys don’t have enough 'Christian meat' to go around, and that’s problematic for you, I know. It’s problematic for me too since I’m outnumbered, outgunned, and outflanked here.

 

From the various responses posted over the past few days--yours included, Dude—I see that I’ve succeeded in raising the eyebrows and ire of some of you by failing in several ways:   by misspelling a name (twice?), to leaving all of you “unimpressed” by my presentation of less than savvy apologetics, to seemingly “bailing out” from a lost argument, and providing a sloppy form of “humor.” Ok, maybe those assessments of my efforts are fair, although truthfully, I haven’t really intended to enter into any kind of apologetics fray. In fact, if I recollect correctly, neither have I quoted a single Scripture verse thus far.

 

Anyway, yes I definitely do have limited time, and I apologize to anyone here who may have assumed that I’d be able to deliver posts on a daily or semi-daily basis. Thanks to Tom Petty, we all know that “the waiting is the hardest part.” Delivering more than a few posts each week is nigh impossible for me to do, being that I have various prior engagements to attend to. This week has been especially busy for me, and most of what I dealt with over the past several days couldn’t be helped and is just a part of life.

 

Probably, I should demarcate the time and frequency within which I can be expected to “show up.” Realistically, I think I’ll have time to interact twice a week, maybe four if I keep my post very short. I don’t know what you guys prefer, but as you might have noticed, I tend to lean more toward moderate to lengthy exchanges.  Another thing is, it might be helpful for all of us if you guys either take turns in conversing with me, or pick 1 or 2 ‘reps’ who will discuss things and confer behinds the scenes with the rest of you. Whichever works best; but I’m not going to try to address each and every one of you, even though it would be ideal if I could.  

 

So, Dude…I have a second, follow up response lined up in my head that I can write out, but if you want to place it on hold, or even just dispense with it altogether, then just give me the word. From what you’ve already suggested, you would like for me “get into it” with Ficino and StJeff. Ok, what would you like for me to do? Do you want me take time this weekend to write a response about James 5 like I proposed, or instead we drop that, at least for a while, and begin talking to the other two guys?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

[StJeffTheIncomprehensible]

 

Hey Dude,

 

After my having been away for a few days, the Lions have become hungry. Obviously, you guys don’t have enough 'Christian meat' to go around, and that’s problematic for you, I know. It’s problematic for me too since I’m outnumbered, outgunned, and outflanked here.

 

From the various responses posted over the past few days--yours included, Dude—I see that I’ve succeeded in raising the eyebrows and ire of some of you by failing in several ways:   by misspelling a name (twice?), to leaving all of you “unimpressed” by my presentation of less than savvy apologetics, to seemingly “bailing out” from a lost argument, and providing a sloppy form of “humor.” Ok, maybe those assessments of my efforts are fair, although truthfully, I haven’t really intended to enter into any kind of apologetics fray. In fact, if I recollect correctly, neither have I quoted a single Scripture verse thus far.

 

Anyway, yes I definitely do have limited time, and I apologize to anyone here who may have assumed that I’d be able to deliver posts on a daily or semi-daily basis. Thanks to Tom Petty, we all know that “the waiting is the hardest part.” Delivering more than a few posts each week is nigh impossible for me to do, being that I have various prior engagements to attend to. This week has been especially busy for me, and most of what I dealt with over the past several days couldn’t be helped and is just a part of life.

 

Probably, I should demarcate the time and frequency within which I can be expected to “show up.” Realistically, I think I’ll have time to interact twice a week, maybe four if I keep my post very short. I don’t know what you guys prefer, but as you might have noticed, I tend to lean more toward moderate to lengthy exchanges.  Another thing is, it might be helpful for all of us if you guys either take turns in conversing with me, or pick 1 or 2 ‘reps’ who will discuss things and confer behinds the scenes with the rest of you. Whichever works best; but I’m not going to try to address each and every one of you, even though it would be ideal if I could.  

 

So, Dude…I have a second, follow up response lined up in my head that I can write out, but if you want to place it on hold, or even just dispense with it altogether, then just give me the word. From what you’ve already suggested, you would like for me “get into it” with Ficino and StJeff. Ok, what would you like for me to do? Do you want me take time this weekend to write a response about James 5 like I proposed, or instead we drop that, at least for a while, and begin talking to the other two guys?

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

 

"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (1 Pet. 3:15).

 

Whatever you like, Philo. I personally would like to see your answer to Dude. You might ask yourself why you're really here in a public ex-Christian forum promoting Christian Faith if you don't think you can answer objections. Just throw it out there, brother. This isn't formal debate. I've never spent more than 10 minutes on any post I've written, and I've written some long ones as well. Yes, you're on the hot seat, but what did you expect? Maybe this kind of venue isn't really your thing--you could really have an in-depth, slowly-proceeding discussion if you had a non-Christian pen pal.

 

Anyway, I don't make the rules here, so I'm fine with whatever you choose and whatever my fellow Lions decide. I'm easy that way.

[duderonomy]

Well, Philo, I guess you will have to decide where to best spend your time here.

 

I suppose that if you have an answer to me lined up in your head already, you may as well type it out. I'll just understand that you may not be able to get back to any responses myself or others have straight away. 

 

I was, I think, being a bit selfish when I suggested that you put our discussion on hold and concentrate on this one. I think I might learn a bit more from the interactions in this thread than the other.

They do seem to overlap though. Either the Bible is true and it's God worthy of faith, or it isn't.  On either thread, we'll be happy to show you that it isn't.    

[2PhiloVoid]

The usual Catholic approach is to say that through natural reason, one can reach the Church as the conduit of God's revelation. From there, one needs to receive her teachings by faith.

 

(they don't deny grace, of course, in this process... )

 

The Bible is perhaps best described as the chief element in Tradition, but never "sola." Tradition roughly includes teachings of Jesus that never made it into the canonical writings but were preserved by the early christians, and the understanding of the overall teachings, in light of which the written documents are interpreted. E.g. Catholics would say that the church believed in the Real Presence in the eucharist, and was celebrating eucharists, maybe two generations before the gospels were written, so any interpretation of the eucharist as a mere memorial was never held, and is wrong from the start.

 

Unlike some Calvinists and others who hold that miracles ceased once the canon was closed, Catholics (Orthodox and others as well) have always held that God causes miracles today, both from his mercy and to substantiate revelation as true.

 

So, why am I not a Catholic anymore? I found reason to conclude that the religious claims are not true.

 

Still, Philo, it's difficult to see what is the context of your claims about the importance of the Bible for faith. Do you hold to "sola scriptura" and advise people to derive doctrine by themselves from the bible, assisted by scholarly reconstructions of the language and culture of the writers? That seems even weaker than the Catholic approach.

 

Hey Ficino,

 

Sure, I agree in some respects with the Catholic approach; how else do we approach God or the Church but with our brains? Seems kind of like a ‘no-brainer’ that we need to know that we have to have the switch to the ol’ noggin “turned on” as it were. However, I’m also under the impression that the Lord has something to do with the epistemological reception of His revelation, as does our willingness to receive it.

 

No, I do not hold to “sola scriptura.” As I alluded to in a previous post, my evaluation and construction of the meaningfulness of the Bible, Christianity, and faith came by way of an“…active following of Jesus as He can be understood through almost 2,000 years of Christian deliberation, spiritual yearning, and attempts at codification.” Meaning, we have to interact with other minds of the Historic Church; taking as Gospel the singular opinions of a local pastor does not quite count as ‘interaction’ in my estimation.

 

Through what was initially an existential encounter with the Bible and the Church, leading to faith in Christ, I came to the eventual conclusion that 'Prima Scriptura' best approximates a description of the Bible’s position in the Church structure; my view is not committedly Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, yet I still consider the historical testimonies, traditions, and developed commentaries of each of these sectors of the Historical Church. Of course, I don’t agree with various articulations of dogma or doctrine, like Transubstantiation, or Perseverance of the Lost, or Sola Scriptura, but I see an underlying thread running through each of these interpretive traditions.

 

With that said, I believe the New Testament is the place to extract the meaning of ‘faith,’ but this has to be done intelligently, taking into account multiple considerations, like hermeneutics and exegesis, from the Historic Church.

 

So, to cite Hebrews 11:1, in English, and to think that it can be understood by ripping it out from its layered contexts as it rests in the book of Hebrews, or to interpret it without taking into account how any application of Sacra Scriptura sui interpres may be relevant, is faulty handling of the text. If at that point of analysis, the interpreter doesn’t see a conclusive meaning, then that is what is concluded; or if the various descriptive attempts of the original writers only yield a partial, or even somewhat diverse, understanding, then that is what is concluded.

 

As far as miracles are concerned, I take the general, Open But Cautious position of Robert L. Saucy (1996), meaning in sum that miracles are possible but unlikely to be seen today.

 

Peace

2PhiloVoid

 

References

Saucy, R. L. (1996). An open but cautious view. In D.A. Oss (Ed.), Are Miraculous Gifts for Today: Four Views (pp. 95-148). Grand Rapids, MI:  Zondervan Publishing House.

[mymistake]

 

 

No, I do not hold to “sola scriptura.” As I alluded to in a previous post, my evaluation and construction of the meaningfulness of the Bible, Christianity, and faith came by way of an“…active following of Jesus as He can be understood through almost 2,000 years of Christian deliberation, spiritual yearning, and attempts at codification.” Meaning, we have to interact with other minds of the Historic Church; taking as Gospel the singular opinions of a local pastor does not quite count as ‘interaction’ in my estimation.

 

Through what was initially an existential encounter with the Bible and the Church, leading to faith in Christ, I came to the eventual conclusion that 'Prima Scriptura' best approximates a description of the Bible’s position in the Church structure; my view is not committedly Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, yet I still consider the historical testimonies, traditions, and developed commentaries of each of these sectors of the Historical Church. Of course, I don’t agree with various articulations of dogma or doctrine, like Transubstantiation, or Perseverance of the Lost, or Sola Scriptura, but I see an underlying thread running through each of these interpretive traditions.

 

 

 

 

Ah, the historic church.  Launching wars of conquest, raping the cities of infidels and heretics, oppressing women, the inquisitions, destroying cultures all around the world, burning thousands of "witches" at the stake, and systematically abusing alter boys - such spiritual yearning.  I would think a supreme being could run an organization better.