Faith by Definition

I suppose I see it in the following way.Faith can be pictured as a highway between myself and God. God establishes that highway. And what he sends down that highway is belief in him, forgiveness etc. Or should I say, the ability to believe in who he is and what he says and to know I am forgiven. It is also the means by which I communicate with him. It is less that I have faith or belief in God and more that I know he exists because I have 'seen' him establish this highway and have experience of receiving goods sent along it. But whilst the flow of goods in either direction can wane (or seem to) and the highway itself doesn't appear to be as clear as it could be, my knowing doesn't alter.Once I know, I know forever. Like knowing 1+1=2 no matter what happens. Which is why I am always curious about people who say they have lost their faith. That may happen but can that mean losing your knowledge of Gods existance? How can one know God exists then unknow it?Maybe I am fortunate in that the evidence was so compelling that I can think of nothing short of mind meltdown which would alter that fact. Bring on the lions...{abe}So what I understand by 'strong faith/belief' is that the personal relationship (for that is what it is ultimately about) between a person and God is running on all cylinders. And vice versaThis message has been edited by iano, 11-Feb-2006 12:33 AM

What do you think is the spiritual vehicle by which this substance is transported between God and man? What is the channel? Interesting but not surprising. Just try it on one of the science threads though. You go first and I'll stand nearby with a can of Ma Murphy's Lion Repellent Elixir This message has been edited by iano, 12-Feb-2006 12:07 AM

It's a comparision I often use to try and analogize the unanalogizable. "I am surer of God than that the Sun will...."You don't have to answer this question but is that how you experience it?

That you are more sure of Gods existance than that the sun will rise tomorrow?

I can understand that the evidence around would point to the existance of God. But that is simply evidence (compelling though it may be) One might travel the path of evidence and conclude there must be a God or one might travel the path and arrive at a destination. Finding that which left the evidence. If the latter, then the evidence is no longer central for one has found that which left it.In that case one can be surer, now, of Gods existance than one is sure, now, that the sun will rise tomorrow. The latter is always a case of travelling the road of evidence, never arriving at the destination.IOW one can know for sure that God exists, but one cannot know for sure that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I see no flaw in it to be honest and it is not that it is anything to do with me. D'ya ever watch those 'whodunnit' style stories: Columbo and the like. At the end, they trawl back over the programme and tie all the little part-evidences together. At the time they seemed (and were designed to be so) to point in numerous different directions but when its all laid out, its as obvious as can be. It fits. Well, arriving at God is the exact same as arriving at the end of Columbo - the evidence you thought pointed to, well kind of hither and thither, fits perfectly in this one puzzle. It takes him to show you however, but when he does you find yourself going "of course"... "aha"...."yeah thats it". It has nothing to do with intelligence or degrees or experience. When its shown you can't help but see it. What I found (initially) to be the most compelling and exciting aspects of finding God (or better...him finding me) was that all the disparate bits of evidence came to unity. Iraq/Aids/multiple Religions/sexualisation of children, etc., are all separate areas for which there is little by way of unifying cause or explanation. The politicists and stragtegists (and EvC) attempt to deal with Iraq. The WHO (and EvC)deals with Aids. Philosophers and theologians (and EvC) deal with Religion. Commerce and social engineering (and EvC) deal with child sexualisation. All different fronts against which 'mankind' contends as separate issues.God explains to me why they and so many other things are all just facets of the same thing. A simple thing. The Fall. We fell into a cesspit s'all. It's rather simple in retrospect...rather impossible before your shown. When I was irrevocably on the opposite side of the fence I was a lot less gracious and tolerant than you. If there is anything of worth to be gleaned from my posts then I am delighted. As much as they wander through the indefinable mists of EvC, they all have but one purpose: to point others to him. My delight holds nothing more for me than the sincere, nay sincerest, hope that one day I will open up one of your posts to find that you have been found too. You are beautiful PY... but that is only a patch on what you could be.You attempt to find meaning and purpose and beauty as an individual - on your own terms. We all do. His plan is that we find it from the comfort and safety..and under the influence of Him. It requires the most difficult sacrifice we can ever make. The giving up of self in order to find what it is to be truly self. He knows what a sacrfice it takes for us - he did the same thing himself. Not for friends, not for those that merited it. He did it so that his enemies could become his friends.

I was watching Schindlers List recently and it struck me how much God was operating in that situation: enabling people to do what they could not do on their own. Doors opening where doors shouldn't open. God working in the ugly stuff. His good becomes more noticeable when you pause to consider how much worse it could have been. Retrospect is a great way of seeing God at work in and around you I find. I often don't see much in the way of progress in the moment. Oftentimes I feel I'm going backwards - but its when I look back over the last 1,2,3,4 years I can plot the upward curve as clear as a bell. And a steeper slope upwards than I could have ever dreamed was possible.I think the occasional disatisfaction comes from the fact that his standards are so high that simple square function growth rates - although astounding to me - is in itself insufficient. God wants growth to be exponential. He invented the possibility of exponential growth afterall.

I can look at the same evidence as you do PY and come to a completely different conclusion. It's a bit like this...Scroll down under the boxBeyond The Veil

The evidence is each pixel. We can examine position and colour and tone. Then we can look at all the available evidence and come to a conclusion about what the picture is. If one wasn't looking with the expectation of optical illusion they might decide the picture looks like a beaufiful woman. Then they notice that unusual object is a feather in her hair and that line around her neck is a choker. IOW, once the initial diagnosis is made, all the subsequent evidence goes to elaborate on the initial diagnosis. The more one investigates the more it all fits togetherAll I'm saying is that the same information can lead to another diagnosis altogether and that all the subsequent evidence goes to support that view.So your assertion that I am ignoring the evidence can be bounced back at you s'all

Unless of course it is of divine origin. In which case it would be unique (in the sense of not having the flavor of the non-divine). There is little point in asking for clarification here- given that experience of the divine requires experience of the divine in order to compare to the non-divine. Indeed, it is experience of the divine that permits you to realise that there is such a "league" as the non-divine. Permits you to categorise all what you say into the mundanity called "human experience" Perhaps this might suffice? William of Ockham (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Don't pull the analogy too much out of shape but:..in something like the same way as one tells rotten from fresh. That is: by stark comparison. If you have only been exposed to fresh all your life and not rotten (to assign terms randomly) - then you won't (of course) be able to tell the difference between rotten and fresh.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

You ever had an orgasm? Assuming so:What instrument do you suppose would suffice to indicate orgasm to one who had never had one? In some meaningful way I mean. A needle banging to the end-of-scale would not (to my mind) suffice.

How do I? I don't. The divine does. To think that a mere human could be the decider on what is the divine and not divine is (to use a fav word of yours) silly.Homocentric to give it its official title.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Er..I know I did have a divine experience. The divine made it so that I know it was divine. Can we agree that the divine (as classically defined: omnipotent and all that) can rearrange whatever it is in me that "knows" or "knows not" into "I know"*.*lets suppose "molecular arrangement of some portion of my mind" for the sake of argument

Interesting philosophical question. The simple answer is that I cannot. No more that your knowing you exist and are partaking in an internet discussion means you are acutally doing so.If you suppose(I think correctly) your flavor of 'knowing' to sit on some throne of "objectively happening in the reality that is" then know that I know God exists according to that precise same flavor.I'm not asking you to believe me. I'm just saying that your knowing suffers from the same problems as does mine - when it comes to demonstrating itself absolutely Edited by iano, : No reason given.