The concept of faith

Purpledawn suggested that this thread might be the place to have the discussion about whether faith/belief is a moral matter or factual matter.Seems this thread had wandered all over the place anyway. What do you think?If this is the place, maybe you could modify the OP and title to include the new direction.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2006 09:33 AM

i think faith and love have very similar qualities. faith is the oil in the engine of lovethey can be very strong or weak, explaining them in words is impossible, having one without the other doesnt feel quite right.your life will show you, against your will, how your doing in these areas... the mirror does not lieThis message has been edited by veiledvirtue, 05-12-2006 10:20 AM

Robin,
Since you started this thread and it has stalled, I don't see a problem with posting an intent to veer the discussion towards the moral or factual nature of faith. It still falls under "The Concept of Faith."

​

Don't change the original post though.

How about adding the intent-to-veer statement as a paragraph at the end of the OP? If it's put in the middle of the thread nobody will see it. Nobody will see it in the OP either but ...

We were talking about whether faith is a moral matter. Now, according to traditional Christianity, one must believe in a set of docrines (summed up, I believe, in the Athanasian Creed) in order to be saved.If you believe this set of doctrines, then your sins as a fallen creature will be forgiven. Otherwise, you will be damned for your sins because they never got forgiven.So from this we can conclude that this belief in the doctrines is of great moral worth, whereas not believing them is evil.I don't see how believing or not believing something is either evil or good. It doesn't seem like a moral matter to me.I conclude, therefore, that this God of traditional Christianity is more interested in our knowledge than our morals.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-12-2006 10:58 AM

I think it's more like the incident of "doubting" Thomas, in which he refused to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead merely on the basis of the testimony of others. He had to see for himself and THEN he believed. "Blessed are those who did NOT see and yet believed," said Jesus. You can't get the knowledge UNLESS you believe those who teach it.There's a component of knowledge involved, but it's a moral issue because it involves respect of others, as opposed to arrogant refusal to trust anyone and anything but your own senses.Perhaps it's moral also in the sense that it involves discernment of character, of honesty and truthfulness, and therefore discernment of good from evil.

quote:

---

How about adding the intent-to-veer statement as a paragraph at the end of the OP? If it's put in the middle of the thread nobody will see it. Nobody will see it in the OP either but ... How about adding the intent-to-veer statement as a paragraph at the end of the OP? If it's put in the middle of the thread nobody will see it. Nobody will see it in the OP either but ...

---

Excellent idea! Put the statement in a blue quote box with a link to the post that starts the new path. That will document the adjustment for other Admins that might review the thread.Thanks Faith

quote:

---

and therefore discernment of good from evil.
  —"faith"

---

unfortunatly this discernment is getting more and more twisted as we journey through time. people are more and more accepting of temporary pleasures that will ultimatly poison future generations. its a twisting of truth to your liking, if you will. we are living in a period of time where people are living it up in fast highs, sadly, the children will show its ugly facepornography is now more popular than the BeatlesThis message has been edited by veiledvirtue, 05-12-2006 12:25 PM

I think its far simpler than that RR. The general principle could be laid out like this (I'll sum up later but see if you can spot the undertow of what is happening throughout - hint: its not about a form of words)A person has to accept that they are morally bankrupt before a wholly Holy God. If "God if you are there" is the very limit of what their heart will permit them to accept of his existance then that will do. "If you are there then I accept I am morally bankrupt before you" is still a total admission of moral bankrupcy - for he is there.A person needs to ask for his forgiveness for making themselves (over who he has ultimate ownership) morally bankrupt. Asking forgiveness confirms that the person indeed accepts themselves to be morally bankrupt and in need of forgiveness.A person has to accept that their salvation comes from God and not by any other means. No loopholes, no more self-dependancy, "nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling". Total reliance on God. At his mercy. "If you exist then I need you to save me from me meeting you in the bankrupt condition I acknowledge before you"A person needs to thank God for offering to save them. "If you exist then I thank you for your offer and I accept it with thanks". Thanking him before one knows one has been saved underscores throwing oneself on his mercy alone. An expression of total faith. A puppy laying on its back: totally vunerable, pride (self-dependance) laid aside, totally at the mercy of an owner who has every right to kick it but who says he won't. And thanking him before you get to know that he won't.Did you spot the essence Robin? Can you see the death of a man here? A man pulling the trigger of a gun pointed at his head. Death of self-sufficiency? Death of doing deals? Death of "on my terms"? Death of NO EVIDENCE!?Death, in short of Pride. Pride in his own ability. Death of a self-made man.Its not about the form of words, its not about believing all the doctrine. Its about a heart response to Gods bringing of you to see your state. Whatever form of words you use, if you pull the trigger on your pride and independnace then die you will. And rise you will.Because he says thats what will happen. It takes guts to trust someone you don't know simply because he says to trust him.And if a person knows in their heart that before him (if he exists) they have confessed him and handed themselves over to his mercy and in so doing sacrificed their pride then saved they are. They may return to intellectualising it away afterwards (until he confirms it for them) but no matter - if they know what they did came from the bottom of their heart (for thats what it would take to do it) they cannot ever unknow it.Neither can He.This message has been edited by iano, 12-May-2006 07:12 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 12-May-2006 07:19 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 12-May-2006 07:37 PM

It comes to the same thing, except that instead of your version being simpler, it's more complicated because you've added yet another belief, that of "moral bankruptcy"--this on top of the Athanasian Creed.

Thomas' reluctance seems very sensible to me. It's not like rising from the dead is a routine event.

True, and Jesus didn't criticize him for it either, merely saying that those who had believed without demanding proof were blessed.However, NOW, many centuries after those events, we are in the same position, hearing about the resurrection from the same people Thomas didn't believe, whose reports are still recorded in the gospels -- and we also have the report of Thomas' verification as well.If we demand to see for ourselves as Thomas did, well, we can't, and that's that. But we can consider believing that all those people including Thomas had seen the empty tomb and had seen Jesus alive after his death, and we can ponder Jesus' words as well, that those who believe without seeing are blessed. That means us. Or some of us anyway.ABE: I don't know if I think there's a moral dimension to this believing without seeing really even though I said I did. It's a way of gaining knowledge without firsthand experience, but it's not so much about the knowledge as about how faith is a means to it, and without faith you don't get the knowledge. I guess the moral dimension enters in that it's Jesus you're asked to believe. Not believing Him is like saying he's not truthful, etc.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-12-2006 04:44 PM

We're not exactly in the same position--far from it.

There has been unbroken continuity of the testimony from the days of Jesus, and millions who have believed it along the way. We are in the very same position.

I thought Thomas knew Jesus personally.