Parables: The Way to Heaven

Author: Discipulus_Didicit

Posts

Total: 437
#331
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Well, the thing is, if properly understood Orthodox Christianity must be true! And that is, as I said, it is Truth Worship, and very purely so.

And thousands of years worth of instruction in this.


What can I tell you but see for yourself?


Comparing to anything else would really be a matter of seeing the differences. 

You want an easy answer that really can't replace experience. How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have faith? 

Even a scientist must have faith in order to go through with the scientific method.


Topic's author
#332
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
You want an easy answer that really can't replace experience. How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have faith? 

Is faith the real reason that you believe orthodox christian theology is accurate then?
#333
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I am not sure there is much left to say.   The issue can be stated as 'Can an individual appreciate the truth of Christianity purely rationally or is faith also neccessary?'.

Christian doctrine is that faith is required.  Reason and intellect can only make Christianity seem reasonable; to know it 'fully'  or 'in one's heart' (epignosis) requires faith to bridge the gap from reasonableness to certainty. 

Faith cannot be justified in rational grounds - that is what makes faith faith!  Nor is the exercise of faith and the 'achievement' of certitude easily stated in words - hence the use of impressionistic metaphors like 'pure heartedness'.

It is sometimes argued that such faith is not restricted to theistic belief; rationalism also depends on faith, that is on holding somethings as true without rational justification.   I think there is some truth in that!   I don't deny my rationalist, atheistic world-view involves faith; the difference is my worldview is right and the theistic worldview is wrong!


#334
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac

Topic's author
#335
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
I am not sure there is much left to say.  The issue can be stated as 'Can an individual appreciate the truth of Christianity purely rationally or is faith also neccessary?'.

If I understand Mopac correctly then what he is saying is that if a person has faith in the accuracy of orthodox christianity then this will lead to experiential knowledge which confirms this to be the case.

Faith cannot be justified in rational grounds - that is what makes faith faith!  Nor is the exercise of faith and the 'achievement' of certitude easily stated in words - hence the use of impressionistic metaphors like 'pure heartedness'.

I am less concerned with whether it is rational and more concerned with whether it is a reliable way of determining whether a certain theology is accurate.

It is sometimes argued that such faith is not restricted to theistic belief; rationalism also depends on faith, that is on holding somethings as true without rational justification.   I think there is some truth in that!   I don't deny my rationalist, atheistic world-view involves faith.

Depends on what definition a person uses for the word faith. The most common is 'belief without evidence'. This may or may not be what Mopac means by the word, we will get to that.

the difference is my worldview is right and the theistic worldview is wrong! 

Do you base this conclusion on rationality then, or faith? A bit of both?
#336
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
@Discipulus_Didicit
Belief without evidence is how atheists use the word faith. That is never how the church understood the word.

Faith can even be "something that is believed especially with strong conviction", and well, evidence usually leads to strong conviction!

But it is the case certainly that you get nothing without faith. To simply grasp these things intellectually is like looking at a shadow. What good is a set of instructions if they are not followed?

And the faith is pure. Worship God in Spirit and in Truth. That is worship through The Trinity.


Topic's author
#337
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
And having faith leads to experiential knowledge which confirms that orthodox christian theology is accurate then?
#338
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I would go so far as to say that faith is integral to even making sense of the whole thing. You know, when all the pieces come together and there begins to show a consistency.

Orthodoxy is a Church of parables. Think of it this way, even in the Gospel accounts, Jesus Christ did not simply tell parables, His entire life was a parable!

And so it is with the church. Every thing that The Church does is a parable of something. And I heard it said by an old retired presbyter that the Sacred Mysteries are mysteries in the sense that they are to be experienced, not solved. 

And even our life is a real mystery, to be lived out.

We are each made in the image of God. That being the case, to be truly human is to keep that image pure. Sin is like dirt and smudges on that image. We are living Icons.

And well, The Church is a hospital. It is there to help you not just to keep that image pure, but to help you to know how! And really, it is God who cleans you, but you do play a part in it. That part is cooperation. God does not force people to accept him, it is a free will choice.

So if it all looks strange from the outside looking in, realize that even when these things were first instituted as practices it was just as strange. It is the way it is very much with purpose, and it isn't simply a situation of "Oh people in ancient times sure were strange. Look at how they did things as preserved in these people who can't get with the times!".




#339
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Belief without evidence is how atheists use the word faith. That is never how the church understood the word.
Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."

I got that reference from st aquinas 'Faith and Reason'.


Aquinas writes:

the intellect assents to something, not through being sufficiently moved to this assent by its proper object, but through an act of choice, whereby it turns voluntarily to one side rather than to the other: and if this be accompanied by doubt or fear of the opposite side, there will be opinion, while, if there be certainty and no fear of the other side, there will be faith.

The princile is also explicit in Papal bull 'Dei filius':
"there are other divine truths, the knowledge of which is necessary for salvation, that are beyond the power of natural reason and can only be known through divine revelation."





 
#340
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
That isn't the same thing as without evidence.

Topic's author
#341
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
I would go so far as to say that faith is integral to even making sense of the whole thing. You know, when all the pieces come together and there begins to show a consistency.

There are billions of people that would say this same thing and aren't Christians. Obviously you would say that those people are "wrong by definition"... but how do you know they are in fact wrong?

So if it all looks strange from the outside looking in, realize that even when these things were first instituted as practices it was just as strange. It is the way it is very much with purpose, and it isn't simply a situation of "Oh people in ancient times sure were strange. Look at how they did things as preserved in these people who can't get with the times!".

No, doesn't sound particularly strange at all. Pretty much what I have heard many times before. I am less concerned with whether it is strange, however, and more concerned with whether it is true.
#342
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
As I said, the religion is Truth Worship. Love of The Truth. Love of The Ultimate Reality through The Truth.

The way to do this in truth is through the cleansing of the nous.

Surely you have enough reason to see how this is the truth.




Topic's author
#343
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that they are wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?
#344
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That isn't the same thing as without evidence.
You wrote: "Belief without evidence is how atheists use the word faith. That is never how the church understood the word.
Faith can even be "something that is believed especially with strong conviction", and well, evidence usually leads to strong conviction!"

Are you claiming faith means nothing more than having a strong conviction?  Hebrews 11:1 makes it clear faith is belief held in the absence of evidence.  Again Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."




Topic's author
#345
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
There are multiple equally valid dictionary definitions of the word faith. The most commonly used definition is 'belief without evidence' and I think Mopac would agree that is a valid definition but just not the definition that he is using in this particular context.
#346
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@keithprosser
The Hebrews 11 passage is not so much a definition of faith as it is a description of how faith works.

And truly, we do not see The Ultimate Reality as it is, but through a glass darkly, but we believe God exists with strong conviction.

And to say there is no evidence of God's existence is a ludicrous claim, as all of creation testifies of God. The Ultimate Reality clearly exists.

And having that faith, we worship God through love of The Truth in sincerity.


#347
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
When mopac writes something like "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have faith?" it is hard to know what he means!

It can't mean "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have strongly held beliefs" nor "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have beliefs without evidence" because neither make any sense!

Further, 'belief without evidence' is a pretty good short-form definition of how the word faith is used in theological contexts. 
In 'tantum ego' Aquinas again tells us faith is what lets us go beyond the evidence of our senses:

"Let faith provide a supplement
For the failure of the senses."









#348
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
And to say there is no evidence of God's existence is a ludicrous claim, as all of creation testifies of God. The Ultimate Reality clearly exists.
Looking up at the night sky and seeing the moon and all the stars and planets etc., must make anyone think that maybe there is a creator-god. 

What you can see in they sky is evidence but it only takes you so far - you just a get a vague feeling there is probaby a creator. 

To know in you heart there certainly is a creator and moreover that creator is the god of the bible and that God loves you - to know all that is True goes beyond seeing the moon in the sky.   To know that God is without doubt the ultiate reality is where faith comes in.

As Aquiinas says in Tantum ego, faith supplements the senses; it does not not replace them..

#349
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
There is no such thing as faith without evidence or reasoning, that is a major misconception and all you have to do is read the Gospels (rather than a secular dictionary), which is where the faith Jesus exemplifies originated. Faith is not a substitute for unfounded beliefs, that means nothing, rather faith is a spiritual tool which correlates with confidence and trust.....BOTH confidence and trust are based on evidence, experience and knowing. Read the Gospels people if you really want to know what it means. Hebrews 11 is misquoted, it doesn't mean to believe with no evidence or reason and goes on to give examples of the opposite.
Hebrews 11
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

How can a person believe that God is without having evidence and reason to do so??

Matthew 17
20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.


FAITH is an ACTION, not an empty belief. 

#350
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
And of course, before someone interprets that passage in Matthew as literally moving mountains check yourself, what Jesus is showing is how faith is used to overcome obstacles whatever they may be for the individual. 
Topic's author
#351
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
It can't mean "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have strongly held beliefs" nor "How can you get experiential knowledge if you don't have beliefs without evidence" because neither make any sense!

I am willing to grant you that those statements don't make sense - because you're right, they clearly don't - but I am not convinced that the premise "this doesn't make any sense" necessarily leads to the conclusion "this can't be what Mopac meant"

The rest of what you are saying I agree with.
#352
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@EtrnlVw
And of course, before someone interprets that passage in Matthew as literally moving mountains check yourself, what Jesus is showing is how faith is used to overcome obstacles whatever they may be for the individual. 
I think it is a bit of hyperbole!

AFAICT, mopac wrote "Belief without evidence is how atheists use the word faith" out of the blue as no one had mentioned 'faith' in this thread.  I wouldsay "Belief without evidence" is not a bad definition of faith if you are limited to 3 words!  

One thing you, Ev, don't do is offer an alternative definition, although you do say what it is not.   'Faith is an action' is not a definition - lots of things are actions (eg running, jumping, blinking) but noneof them are faith, (or is it 'having faith'?).

Faith is a sort of knowledge.  Most of what we know we know from direct experience (eg fire is hot, lead is heavy etc). We can also know things because they are guaranteed by logic;  e.g. a batchelor is male and unmarried.  Technically such knowledge is called 'empirical' and 'a priori' respectively.   Faith is knowlege that is neither empirical nor a priori.  The source of 'faith knowlege' is divine revelation.  

When you read Gen 1 your experience is 'The bible says the world was made in 6 days'.  Without faith, all you could know is 'the bible says the world was made in 6 days'.  But faith can take you further - it can give you the knowledge that the world was made in 6 days.

so i would say Mopac was wrong.  Atheists - or at least this atheist - does not define faith as belief without evidence; but to be just as brief i could say faith is belief beyond evidence.
       




#353
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
"this can't be what Mopac meant"
I often struggle to discern what mopac means.  I suspect he is often guilty of caring more about the sound of his prose than its meaning.

#354
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@keithprosser
One thing you, Ev, don't do is offer an alternative definition, although you do say what it is not.   'Faith is an action' is not a definition

Faith is trust and confidence, try reading what I write. Thanks. 

FAITH- trust or confidence in someone or something.
#355
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
FAITH- trust or confidence in someone or something without evidence.
#356
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
hey mop prove that the truth is god.
#357
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Loving God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. The first commandment and greatest commandment.
And the second is like it. Love thy neighbor as thyself. Where does that come from? Recognizing that we were created in the image of God. To love others is to love God. 
After you have complied with the first commandment What will you love your neighbour with?

Topic's author
#358
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
(C/P from post 343) If somebody told you that faith is integral to understanding their theology and learning the truth you would say that they are wrong. How would you know that they are in fact wrong?
#359
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
You say I would say these things. 

Can reading a book about carpentry replace carpentry?


There isn't much else to say. My religion is Truth Worship. If you can't see passed the surface level at this point, I would invite you to come and see.

If you aren't going to, I am not going to press the issue.


#360
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
What really annoys people are your insinuations that we are anti-truth and your self-appointed role as the oppressed upholder of truth.

I submit we are just as commited to truth as you are - I hesitate to say more committed.  I think what you call the truth isn't the truth.  I don't think you are wicked or stupid - I do think you are mistaken.

I look forward to your usual condescending response!