Mike(ATL)

Rather than using arbitrary definitions of the word "faith," let's look at what the Bible has to say about it.

Hebrews 11:1-3
1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
2 For by it the men of old gained approval.
3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible

Hebrews 11 is a great chapter on faith, I encourage anyone to read it who hasn't read it already. Here faith is described as an assurance. By having "faith" in something we are sure of it. Faith is not some feeling we get, it is an assurance. From examples in this chapter we can see how much God values faith.

Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

I think that every believer comes to a place where we have "faith" in God. We come to a place where we are assured that God is who He says He is and that His word is truth. How God works in each individual life to bring us to that place varies. Some people come to a faith in God primarily through logical investigation and an open mind. Some people come to faith in God primarily through personal experience. Whatever the experience, God uses that process to build a foundation in us. Were God to be so obvious that no faith is required, our relationship with Him would be diminished. God values that faith relationship and so do we. It's when we start talking about faith that the unbeliever tunes out because they just don't understand, I don't know any better way to put it.

Mageth

Were God to be so obvious that no faith is required, our relationship with Him would be diminished.

Why?

Steven Carr

Really? Peter, Paul, John and James have NO prestige among Christians? I thought they were all saints and all highly regarded by Christians?

Being the leader of a religious movement is prestigious in itself. Perhaps not in the eyes of everybody, but certainly in the eyes of the leaders, which is all that counts.

Paul makes clear that people made money out of the Gospel. Even he himself received gifts.

Vinnie

""""""""""""Paul makes clear that people made money out of the Gospel. Even he himself received gifts."""""""""""""""

Paul also received a good thrashing on several occasions!

Paul is just oozing with prestige in 2 Cor 11:

22What anyone else dares to boast about--I am speaking as a fool--I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers. 27I have labored and toiled and have often gone without sleep; I have known hunger and thirst and have often gone without food; I have been cold and naked. 28Besides everything else, I face daily the pressure of my concern for all the churches. 29Who is weak, and I do not feel weak? Who is led into sin, and I do not inwardly burn?

I wonder if Paul had a cape? Cause he was like a super-apostle

Vinnie

Vinnie

There are positive aspects to it. At any rate, that question looks like one big titular reductionist fallacy waiting to happen

At any rate, if I may ask a question of all the atheists for clarification purposes, why should any any theist repsect atheism?

Vinnie

Vinnie

I think the argument was that Christianity advocates research, testing everything, not having blind faith, having a logically consistent worldview that one contends and defends on an intellectual basis. This is one xian who does not advocate blind faith. The whole point was that Xianity is "rational". Rational does not mean correct. It simply means you aint be crazy or stupid for believing in it. So it should intellectually be respectable. This does not mean all facets are respectable though.

As an opposite, people who believe the earth be flat is not rational. They be crazy sons of the b word!

Re exegesis and faith:

Faith in the NT, if our hermeneutic assumes a canonical dimension, turns out to be something along the lines of "belief and action based upon established facts". See Hebrews 11. Not all uses cohere pefectly with this but its what happens if you mesh them all together.

For example: "By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith. "

This is not "blind faith" because I believe Noah was spoken to directly by God or a messenger of some sort about hte oncoming flood. So how can it be blind when Gawd or his top dawg makes a real live cameo for you.

But I don't accept that hermeneutic so faith simply means different things in different places. That is one. Lots of "equivocation" on the word.

Of course, the global flood = impossible along with a universal one. A local one is possible (maybe even biblically as well as scientifically) but a non-universal one is not biblically consistent and scientifically, a universal one is impossible.

I don't think I can intellectually respect a global flood or yecism. What say ye unto that slaveofchrist? These are not "rational" positions. How can they be intellectually respected?

Vinnie

Steven Carr

Indeed yes. He could write letters laying down the law for entire churches, and expect his words to be obeyed.

Vinnie

You're stretching now.

Paul did it all for the power of being able to write letters to dictate policy? I suppose thats why all people today have kids? Something about the power of laying down the law and controlling other human beings? People with more than one child are power hungry?

I think we are distorting the original intent:

slaveofchrist: Its original members did not gain any power or prestige, but death.

Carr: Really? Peter, Paul, John and James have NO prestige among Christians? I thought they were all saints and all highly regarded by Christians?

I "think" sov's point was more along the lines of "they didn't do it for power or prestige." Not thy don't have any today in the eyes of others. Paul spent his life dedicated to Christ went through a lot for Jesus. Reducing him down to some mere power hungry Jewish dude siezing an oppurtunity to be flogged and beaten with rods is a little far fetched here.

Further, Paul thought the world was coming to an end soon or some such thing in his urgent eschatology. He was wrong, of course but that means his prestige today is inadvertant. It wasn't calculated or planned. There wasn't supposed to be a today. Neither was it calculated in his own day since the end was nigh. It would just as easy to believe Paul walked on water as it is to believe he did what he did to gain some power.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

I was reacting to what slaveof christ wrote, not your interpretation.

As Paul explains, some people DID preach the word of god purely for money (2 Cor. 12, if I remember rightly)

As for slave's bizarre assertion that the original members gained death, well you seem to have refuted that nicely by Paul boasting of floggings. Hard to boast of floggings when others are being killed.

Hebrews 12:4 'In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.'

What a strange thing to write when Christians were shedding blood.

Revelation also describes the terrible hardships some Christians were enduring. One martyr is named, and others are threatened with prison. Only threatened, mind you.

Considering how many suicide bombers have been martyrs just in the past two years, that is not a huge death toll.

Vinnie

""""""I was reacting to what slaveof christ wrote, not your interpretation."""""""

I know.

""""""As Paul explains, some people DID preach the word of god purely for money (2 Cor. 12, if I remember rightly)"""""

Of course. Some still do it today.

"""""""As for slave's bizarre assertion that the original members gained death, well you seem to have refuted that nicely by Paul boasting of floggings. Hard to boast of floggings when others are being killed."""""""""

Anachronism. We know that in Paul's thinking "to live is Christ and to die is actually gain." Those who die and go with the Lord are lucky. Paul himself longed for it but he more or less said he had to stay because the work God called him to do was not complete.

If Paul had prestige in anything, it was being specially ordained by God to hellp inaugurate the new era. What greater honor is there?

And I would certainly dispute comments to the effect that Christians were being all out inquisitioned in the first stratum. There is evidence of persecution and maybe there were a few executions but "they all died for their beliefs is a little far fetched".These are exceptions rather than the rule.

Vinnie