The Tension of Faith

But if you want to analyze what people in a book mean, then shouldn't you analyze the words they say in the book rather than the words they say that you made up? Faith did actually say that Jesus changed the meaning of the commandments. When she said, for example, that "Jesus explained that the commandment against adultery forbids adultery in the heart and not just outward behavior," that is pretty clearly saying that Jesus changed the meaning of that commandment. According to Faith, before Jesus spoke those words the commandment applied only to the act of adultery, but after he spoke them it also applied to "adultery in the heart."In reality Jesus used the commandment as a point of departure for defining additional requirements. In effect he said, "You know that commandment where you're not allowed to commit the act of adultery? Well, now you're not allowed to think it, either."But we're not talking about the topic again. Why do you care so much how I interpret what Faith says? If Faith thinks I've got it wrong then let her say so, and if has something to do with The Tension of Faith then maybe it'll be worth pursuing.--Percy

Which is what I did.

quote:

---

"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---

I then interpreted this as

quote:

---

you have committed adultery in your heart which is sufficient to run afoul of the commandment. He may even remind you that 'thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife' is also there, but since his point was to stick his finger up at legalism he might not. He was saying that sticking to the letter of the law is not sufficient, but the spirit of the law.

---

And I provided further supporting quotes to support this. No. Jesus explicitly presented a broader meaning to the commandments. Faith just said what Jesus. The meaning doesn't change. It is still forbidden to commit adultery, it's just Jesus said that adultery means more than the literal 'intercourse with x while married to y'. No, it isn't. Its saying the way some people took it to mean was too narrow. The meaning wasn't changed, it always from Jesus' perspective meant what Jesus said it meant. Jesus was attacking the literal meaning of the commandment that others had come to interpret it as. No. According to Faith, Jesus 'explained' that it actually applied to adultery in the heart, not just of the body. That is, it meant that before Jesus said it. Again, I don't see Jesus as saying this was a new thing. He wasn't saying 'now you're not allowed to think it' he was saying 'you're not allowed to think it'. I was just giving you the scriptural references Faith was referring to. I added the Mark and Paul at your request and provided some OT references to support the overall point.You decided to focus on how you were right about what Faith said (Message 893). She did. Message 895

I think I've talked about this before. I find I have to put a lot of effort into figuring out what you mean, and I keep upping the effort in the hope of getting it right, but despite that you still often tell me I've misinterpreted you. From my perspective there's a fluidity to your manner of expression that leaves itself open to many interpretations, enough that the odds of choosing the wrong one are pretty good. I honestly don't know how to interpret this. Word definitions matter to you? They don't? Not so many posts ago it seemed you were saying that testimony is anything anybody writes, and now you seem to be saying it again. But if "everything is testimony" then what is the point of the word "testimony"? This feels identical to the issue I raised earlier, that if "everything is evidence" then what is the point of the word "evidence"? But you also agreed that miracles are made up. But you chose the relationships and values yourself. Your argument doesn't stand. Miracles are a holdover from our unscientific unknowledgeable past and not something with any basis in reality. The mere act of speaking or writing words is not evidence. But we've already argued through this and aren't going to resolve it. There are a number of very old scientist/mathematician/engineer jokes, and in one them they're each allowed to proceed half the distance to the pretty girl opposite them each time a bell rings. The scientist and the mathematician don't move when the bell rings, knowing full well they'll never reach the girl, but the engineer dutifully advances half the distance. Asked why he's doing this he responds, "Once I'm close enough, that's all that matters."What I mean by reminding you of this old joke is that you can argue theoretically and mathematically all day long that John is testimonial evidence of miracles, but from a pragmatic standpoint John is just a story and miracles aren't real. But you agree with Faith about John and evidence, and only because you think everything is evidence. Of course you think I should abandon the argument you disagree with. That approach hasn't worked over the past 15 years. To me the pragmatic approach avoids repeating trips down failed avenues. Maybe no argument will ever work with Faith, that's certainly possible, but we'll never know if there is an argument that will work if instead of trying new ones we just keep repeating old failed ones.--Percy

Perhaps we're not talking about the same thing. I'm talking about where you said in Message 889: That words where you have Jesus retorting, "you have committed adultery in your heart which is sufficient to run afoul of the commandment," are the ones you're putting in Jesus' mouth. They do not appear in any gospel. So, as someone committed to possibilities and their individual probabilities, would you say that p=1 for your interpretation and its supporting quotes? I think we know by this time that repeating our interpretations back at each other isn't going to be persuasive. I'll save us the trouble of repeating my interpretation again. "Thou shalt not commit adultery," isn't open to narrow misinterpretation. And yet it was "a new thing." It certainly wasn't a meaning of "Thou shalt not commit adultery" that anyone had thought of before. Jesus' realm of the spirit rather than of the material was new. And I rebutted her. Message 906. No reply. What a surprise.--Percy

Evidence is that which increases the probability of some hypothesis.
Eye witness accounts have this property. It is my belief that miracles are made up. Based on analysis of all the evidence, including the evidence for the hypothesis. For illustration, as I explicitly stated. The point is that any non zero probability results in the same conclusion - the probability with eye witness accounts is higher than when witness accounts are absent. Are you asking me to prove the general case? I would have thought that a little boring. Then show it. Show that either miracles are 0 probability or that non-zero probabilities don't improve probability. The totality certainly suggests this highly probable. But that doesn't change what does or does not change the probabilities that this hypothesis is false. I don't think everything is evidence and apparently there is no upper limit on the number of times I apparently need to remind you of this.A witness account is evidence. How reliable the witness is requires examining that evidence as well as additional evidence. Hmm, seems you must reject the pragmatic approach. Hey if you want to go for the 'for all intents and purposes' argument, you're welcome to it - I don't think its particularly useful position in this context. I'm just here to say technically it is evidence upon which faith is built upon.Instead of you asserting 'it isn't evidence' and faith asserting 'it is evidence' I thought it might be more interesting to actually build arguments for and against that position. You seem to have got stuck on the asserting your position based ultimately on your belief that miracles are not real. Good luck with that.

Or decrease.But you prefer this definition because you think you can take a mathematical approach. You actually appear to believe you've mathematically proven that evidence of miracles exist. Eyewitness accounts are the worst kind of evidence. We've been over this. You both believe miracles are made up and that you've mathematically proven evidence of miracles exists. But I don't believe your mathematical machinations have any real world applicability. Yeah, I know you think this, and that you've proven it mathematically. And yet you've failed innumerable times to provide a single example of something you don't believe is evidence. A fictional story about a witness isn't evidence, and anyway, again, eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of evidence there is. This is another example of one of those things you say that I'm unable to make any sense of. I won't even venture a guess what you're thinking. Hey, if you want to go for the "I have mathematical proof of evidence of miracles," you're welcome to it. You agree with me that miracles aren't real. I again have no idea what thing that might be true you're trying to communicate.--Percy

While I may very well choose not to reply to posts I think are stupid, that isn't my reason at the moment. I moved to a new location at the beginning of this month and have not been able to get some things set up, such as my computer. So I've written whatever I've managed to write in that time on public computers in my new apartment building. But I don't spend more than a couple hours at a time here.Mod is doing an impressive job of explaining my point of view I must say. He's right that Jesus did not change the commandments but, as I said, showed that they are far deeper than had earlier been understood. The Jews stuck to an interpretation of the commandments as mostly external and God allowed that, but now Jesus, God Himself in the flesh, is revealing many things the Jews did not fully understand, such as the actual spiritual depths of the Mosaic Law. Jesus also now revealed that God had been lenient to the Jews in their standards for divorce, since they were inclined to divorce a woman for the equivalent of burning the toast, but when Jesus came He showed that God abhors divorce for any reason at all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah - I'm talking about where I quoted Jesus, then upon your objection I illustrated my point with a rewording of what Jesus said so as to illustrate the problem with your objection. I quoted Jesus, as you said I should, and provided additional words from there. As in, the exchange as a whole - not just some subset. No. Really?Is anal sex adultery?
Is oral sex?
Is heavy petting?
Is kissing?
Is flirting?
Is affectionate hugging?
Is stalking?
Is lusting?What counts as adultery is a subjective judgement.I mean here is the OT again:

quote:

---

To keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.

​

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.

​

For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
Psalms 6

---

quote:

---

thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife
Exodus 20

---

quote:

---

Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife
Deu 5

---

Well that's not necessarily true. See the OT quotes above. Lusting, covetousness and adultery as sins were kind of put together previously. It was, however, not the prevailing interpretation of the 'powers that be' of Judaism in Jesus' environment. Yeah, that's not a rebuttal. You said Faith's interpretation is one way and another way was your interpretation. That's a description.It certainly doesn't argue that Faith was saying Jesus was changing things. It's just you arguing that Jesus was changing things.We can certainly claim it was not the Author's intention to convey a sense of change in the commandments since a few verses earlier he had Jesus saying:

quote:

---

Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law

​

Mat 5:18

---

Reading more, he isn't saying the law changes, but he does argue that the law is minimal and implores his listeners to 'go the extra mile' rather than merely obeying the law - one should actually strive for perfection.Of course its fine to regard this as 'adding' to things, but this stuff is based on the back of - 'love your neighbour' stuff in the OT so its also legitimate to interpret as it seems it was intended - as repudiating the legalistic interpretations of the Pharisees in favour of a more holistic approach to God's law.

Well, since you are of a scientific mind, I thought this was the best way. It's how science deals with it. In some branches you try and get the probability that the results happened by chance as opposed to 'because the hypothesis is correct' is less than 0.05 by gathering sufficient evidence. So in a medical trial you use larger groups of more diverse people, for instance. In physics there is a tendency to strive to demonstrate a phenomenon is real with 99.9999% confidence. And we agreed. But they are a kind of evidence, as you just said. That's about the size of it. I did explain this before. I think science and history are real world applications. My owning a cat is not evidence of you owning a dog.Remember that? Agreed. Unfortunately for your point, it isn't 100% certain that John is fictional. I'm saying you have not avoided repeating trips down failed avenues. Everyone has an opinion. I'm trying to push beyond mere opinion.

I agree. I think you've won a convert. Like I said, that's one view. I don't know what interpreting the commandments "as mostly external" means, but "Thou shalt not commit adultery" isn't difficult to "fully understand," and there seems no evidence that "the actual spiritual depths of the Mosaic Law" were anything other than the invention of whoever wrote the words Jesus spoke.--Percy

I'd love to think Mod is a convert but unfortunately it's pretty clear he's not; he's just a clearheaded thinker. That alone is remarkable at EvC however.Well, you are making up your own view of all this, but against you we have two millennia of theological commentary on my side. Lust in the heart is adultery and jesus is God so He can say so."External" sin or obedience refers to outward behavior, spiritual or internal sin or obedience refers to the disposition of the heart. I said "mostly" because the tenth commandment against coveting is clearly internal by its nature and the Jews weren't entirely committed to mere behavioral obedience.abe: Loving the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength is also primarily internal. All the comandments have outward expression as well of course..Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, sure, but to me it seems like you're trying to quantify the unquantifiable. You tried to rationalize your position, which is still contradictory. Of course we agree that science and history are valid areas of study, but only one of us believes they've shown mathematically that evidence of miracles exists. Of course, we talked about context, but you owning a cat is evidence of lots of other stuff, so you still haven't provided an example of anything that for you isn't evidence.Remember that? Oh, I think we can be very certain that John's accounts of eyewitnesses to miracles are fictional.--Percy

Oh how I hope we get to see the expressions on some people's faces at the Judgment Seat when the truth finally slaps them upside the head.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh, I don't know, Judaism might have expressed a few theological opinions over the past couple millennia, plus their religious book is older than yours if age is the way you're keeping score. According to Jesus, yes, absolutely. The disagreement is about whether that's what the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" meant from the very beginning when God first gave Moses the tablets, or was it a late addition to the meaning of the commandment by Jesus, or was it something on the same topic as that commandment but not part of it that Jesus added.--Percy

You needn't sound so gleeful.Got a TV show recommendation for you: The Good Place. Season 1's on Netflix, season 2 is on pause until January, probably season 2 will show up on Netflix when it's over.--Percy