Anyone here prepared to engage in the meta-conversation? My attempts at communicating the sincerity of my questions/curiosity look, even to me, really sucky. Did they come across as suckily as I fear they did? I think for what I tried to do, that wasn’t an effective way of doing it, might even have been counter-productive?

Thoughts on “keeping the faith” with regards to career: a cousin is a professional sports person at present. An entrepreneur with a new idea, won’t know if it will work, if it is worthwhile pursuing, but he holds onto it and perseveres, and may end up making a huge success of it. The dream of any startup. A person doing philanthropic work, in the front lines, dealing with it every day, possibly faced with doubts as to the efficacy of his or her efforts, or more interestingly there’s the possibility to doubt whether it’s a worthwhile way to spend your life, rather than making lots of money and then enjoying yourself (and maybe donating half of it to “charity”). I consider these to be examples of careers needing a good dose of faith to pursue, to stay motivated, to make a success of it.

In discussions around concepts like faith, it seems inevitable that we run into a barrier that will never be crossed, that between the defenders of the faith and the defenders from the faith. Possibly the problem we run into is confusing faith and *the* faith. The faith being whatever we use right now to “create meaning” when we feel unsure, certainty for some for some of the time.

I feel that faith is far more dynamic. Perhaps you said it best: There’s No Such Thing as “Faith” This seems related to some theologians preferring at times to say there is no God, simply because any representation we could try to construct would be limited and misleading. If faith is something special, then it is no faith at all, and becomes something brittle that needs to be defended. Specifically in the context of Christianity, I’d suggest that the Good News for Some can only ever be the Bad News. What then is the Good News? Couched in somewhat more secular terms, faith as holding the right set of ideas is holding the wrong idea about faith. That would solidly place faith in direct competition with philosophy and the sciences. If that is the case, guess which side I’m rooting for

Perhaps one way of exploring what faith might be would be to start with the assumption that every one of us reading this thread was already in the “right” state (whatever that might mean). What would faith have to be to transcend and encompass these differences without glossing over them or merely tolerating them?

Whimsical answers to all this yakking are more than welcome

My name is Jose Ramirez

I was sponsored to came to you very beautiful country, er too ah, vea mi victoria of my country win the World Cup soccer. Ole!!! Ole!!! Sorry, I pick up wallet. Other man’s wallet outside Soccer City. I look inside, but … something make me cough very badly. And I must cough and cough and cough and then cough some more. Then Jose Ramirez, able to stop coughing (something in air?) and er, look inside the wallet but … I swear on los Madre, it has no dinero … er, what you say – money inside – only owner’s driver’s licence – say’s man who own wallet is Angus Buchan. Nothing else except business cards, lots and lots of business cards.

You help Ramirez – Maybe some these people know him from business card: Ray McCauley, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, T.B Joshua, Christ Multimedia Publishing, Holy Ghost Events R Us!!, Shofar, New Generation Fellowship, Lighthouse, Hillsong Corporate and CUM – sorry, too many other cards … but maybe some of these business friend I list maybe know this man.

Help me return his wallet to him. I’m not go away. I find very nice new place to live in you country – called Clifton – I buy big house on third beach and all I can say is: Praise God!!

Adios
Jose Ramirez

P.S. My phone number is 555-3983984

It has been said that, in Zen practice, that one needs Great Faith, Great Doubt and Great Determination. Our habitual way of defining faith and doubt render this statement paradoxical. At this point, let Great Doubt kick in and try to determine what is ACTUALLY meant by the statement (assuming that you have enough Faith in the intentions of the framer of the statement, and the Determination to figure out what it means)

With the history of the English word “belief” considered, and a shift in meaning between the 14th and 16th century, I guess nitty discussions about “belief” and “faith” need to have some idea of which sense is being talked about. The old sense? The contemporary sense? The original sense of the original Hebrew and Greek words translated to “belief” and “faith” in contemporary translations of the Bible?

Why talk about finicky words though, more interesting is the discussions of concepts that carry value, like that trinity of Greats — more value to be had in discussing what that paragraph is talking about, than what other specific meanings individual words from the paragraph might carry. (Reductionism breaking the bigger picture?)

A quick aside, to e.g. Ben-Jammin’ et al, I acknowledge that my primary hypothesis is not holding up well

I’m just reading along.

http://a.imageshack.us/img517/4210/popcornxy2.jpg

@Hugo Thanks, I’ve had a quick look at the “Reduce or Wrestle” post (haven’t been around for a while), thought the quote you selected was really cool

the essence,
not that we find the right answer, but that we
wrestle with the tradition
fight with it
love it
are transformed by it…

I can definitely identify with it. I wonder though, if somebody said that it all sounds a bit quixotic, how would you respond? The line “not that we find the right answer” might create that impression.

In the meantime, I’ve had a slower look through the comment thread. Sorry if the following is a bit long, and I’m curious about the other posts too, but in trying to respond to Sallie’s comments, I think I’ve written enough for now What I’m trying to do, is establish what the core of your (Sallie’s) experience is.

@Sallie, the following from your earlier posts was particularly interesting

I once found myself not solid in a few areas and prayed for THE TRUTH. I was willing to let go of what I, at that time, thought was true. (this can trip some people up.) I do believe there is absolute truth. Some people want to be right. I am one of them. However, I discovered that in my quest to be right, I could find myself dead wrong-and for eternity in this case. So instead of focusing on the desire to be right, I focused on knowing Truth. That way I’ll have both.

If I understand correctly, you are drawing a distinction (though not necessarily separating) truth (relative) and Truth (absolute). I apologize if I’m misreading your comments, but trying to find a connection. Is the following accurate?

1. Knowledge, whether scientific knowledge or knowledge of scriptures (let us keep knowledge OF scriptures and the knowledge IN scriptures separate, this is doable, correct?) is inherently fallible because humans are limited, error-prone creatures.
2. Many humans (if not most humans), including yourself, like being right (in the factual sense).
3. However, because we are inherently fallible, we can’t expect to be right about life-the-universe-and-everything. (I’m very much in line with Kenneth et al. when it comes to actually testable knowledge, but I believe what you’re actually trying to get at goes beyond this).
4. The desire to be right (factually) is, therefore, not *inherently* flawed, but you can never be certain whether you are factually correct, and so the desire, the *actual* source of your specific problem (not of a factual nature, but of a human/spiritual nature), will never go away. So pursuing factual knowledge, while a worthwhile end in itself, is not getting to the heart of the matter you’re talking about.

5. From your scriptural reference:

I say these things about absolute truth because there are many who debate it and lose focus on “trusting in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths.”

Meaning, we sometimes end up debating within the domain of the knowable, but the totality of what a human is goes beyond that (in the sense that rational, propositional thought is a subsystem of our larger mind, one of the senses if you will).
6. Recap: From (4), in the absence of truth which is 100% reliable (in the factual sense, but we can certainly find closer and closer approximations to it!), so we must find a different foundation if that particular human yearning is ever to be satisfied (from 5, more or less).

Now I definitely go out on a limb, not sure if the following is what you mean at all, so I’ll keep this part short until I’ve heard what you have to say. No point if I’m completely misreading you.

7. When we go beyond the rational, all we can do is be still and Listen (metaphorically, not necessarily hearing or language related). If we do this with complete trust, what we are aligned with is the Truth. (I think the scriptural reference Ps 46:10 “Be still, and known that I am God” is connected to this)
8. By being aligned with (having) the Truth, you are also right in the sense that you are alright, you are justified, not quite the same sense as factual correctness. Ie. I suspect there was this shift in meaning (in “right”) in your writing.

Perhaps you might render the experience as: The Truth is made known out of Grace (not by our own efforts, it is just always, inevitably, made available), and Faith is the result of being transformed by Grace, allowing you to live more and more in communion with the Truth (but this transformation begins with trust, which is, paradoxically, both up to us (relative sense) and not up to us (absolute sense)). Having Faith, you have answered the question you needed answering, it’s just that you asked the wrong question initially. This is, as I understand, justification by Faith (or equally, justification by Grace, two sides of the same coin, but I think the differing emphasis of the two is actually quite valuable).

Hopefully this at least begins to be an approximation of what you’re getting at, but fire away regardless

I reject the use of any method in biblical study that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason, tradition, or experience.

Why? How have you decided that criticism of a book should be rejected?

(There are many scientists that believe this and offer evidence.)

Hold on. Who? Can you give me examples of who this might be, and what kind of evidence they have?

@Hugo

Reason: Kenneth will be quick to point out human cognitive biases and the measures necessary to form scientific objective conclusions.

Am I that predictable?
*wanders off, grumbling…*

Sallie, I’m in the process of learning my views were wrong. Thanks for your detailed comment, pardon another couple of questions. I intend to make these my last, if I can get them right.

You take a literal reading, you reject modern biblical scholars’ approach. You reject scholars’ suggestion that the Book of Daniel was written in the second century BC. You reject the majority of modern science. I What I’m trying to understand, is why.

Proponents of the definition we both dislike would consider this an example of “active non-thinking” about the origins of the text. Is that really the case?

Below a number of “why” questions about your views and your keeping of your views, some repetition, though it’s really just one big question, might have a short answer. Hopefully the compounded question serves to get as close to what I referred to with “evidence” above as is possible.

How did I come to trust in God’s word as reliable?
I honestly can’t remember not believing that.

Recap and questions (not meant as me giving an explanation): you were taught this belief as a pre-schooler, you grew up with this belief. Did you ever give it a “critical” thought? (I think you could critically analyse the belief even while believing it, so it’s not precluded by what you’ve shared so far.) If you did consider, for some time, that this belief could be wrong, what made you conclude it was indeed correct?

Otherwise, if you didn’t ever consider that the belief could be wrong, why not? Was it… fear of hell, should you dare to risk doubting? (I understand literalist-style Christianity has a very negative view of doubt.) Rephrased, was it because you believe it to be wrong to even consider that those beliefs could be wrong? Or was it simply not wanting to go against the flow, make waves, stand out, challenge the views of the world around you (the culture of your community and family)? Was it because maintaining that belief allows you to “be right” (you mentioned you like being right – though it might take some work to get there), whereas the path of contemporary science and higher criticism would leave you without the opportunity to be right and believe you have a hold on “absolute truth”? Or was it something else, something more?

What convinced you that the belief you grew up with was worth holding on to?

…

You do touch a bit on this:

Even at 5 I had a relationship with God-Jesus. I knew He could be trusted, I could trust His word.

How did you know that? (I’m going by the assumption that it wasn’t “active non-thinking” about the matter, it was something more profound, right?)

I did the “teenager” thing but still never doubted. Since becoming an adult I have tested the Word (I hope this doesn’t open up a new can of worms for anyone) to never fail.

That’s fine for me, though maybe answers to further questions could end up opening cans of worms for Kenneth. You know the method of science is empirical testing. The thing a scientific view of the world considers “evidence” is that which comes out of objective de-biased empirical experiments. And a scientific experiment need not be “active”, it could be digging up fossils or simply looking at the spectrum of light from distant stars — if there’s a prediction/expectation and some data that indicates whether the prediction/expectation is correct, that counts as evidence.

Thus this “testing the Word” is great, I think. It is on-topic for the hypothesis I’m considering in this post and conversation. You do testing, you find results, you experience that (subjectively) as evidence. Does that sound right? (Remember: objective evidence is also subjectively experienced as evidence. I’m throwing in “subjectively” not in order to say “not objectively”, but just to sidestep the objectivity question for the purpose of this conversation. Reason: Kenneth will be quick to point out human cognitive biases and the measures necessary to form scientific objective conclusions. And I would also be tempted to do the same, this stuff fascinates me, but that’s not what I’m trying to discuss, hence I consciously try to leave it out.)

That mostly concludes my “primary question”. The Book of Daniel presents another opportunity to ask about the Canon though:

Three additional sections are preserved only in the Septuagint, and are considered apocryphal by Protestant Christians and Jews, and deuterocanonical by Catholic and Orthodox Christians.

In the light of that, do you have some thoughts on why you accept the version of the Bible you read? You read twelve chapters of Daniel, is it of any concern to you that there could be three additional sections to Daniel that you don’t read? (And why does or doesn’t this concern you?)

Thanks Sallie, apologies if I’m wearing you out. I will do my utmost to ask no more questions, these *must* be my final ones. *Grrr.* I should succeed, I seem to manage these days to not bore people with my opinions if they’re not interested. (After all, I’m sure you have already come across many of the opinions I hold, your previous comment pre-emptively address them.)

—

Now addressing any spectators following or reading this: if you’re curious or keen to have a discussion about any of the points in Sallie’s post that I haven’t commented on, speak up! I’d be happy to hear your opinion and to share mine. I strive to no longer babble on about viewpoints that would be of no interest or value to the people I’m talking to — thus me not wanting to drag Sallie into a discussion like that.

Thanks again Sallie, peace to you too.

“Bible is the Word of God–the inspired, infallible revelation of truth in written form. The Bible is its own interpreter, provides the foundation and context for scholarship and the totality of life, and is the unerring standard for doctrine and experience.

I endorse the use of historical-grammatical, biblical interpretation of the Scripture, recognizing the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s aid in so doing. I reject the use of any method in biblical study that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason, tradition, or experience.

I affirm the literal reading and meaning of Genesis 1-11 as an objective, factual account of earth’s origin and early history; that the world was created in six literal, consecutive, contiguous 24-hour days; that the earth was subsequently devastated by a literal global flood, and that the time elapsed since creation week is to be measured in terms of a short chronology of a few thousand years.” (There are many scientists that believe this and offer evidence.)

The fact that many use the critical method to interpret is not a reason to support and use it. The Bible is its own interpreter and not of private interpretation.

I don’t base my faith in the Bible on my experience. This I feel would be subjective. This doesn’t mean that my faith is not experienced. I am talking about having a relationship with the Living God in the person of Jesus. That is an experience! He is everything.

You don’t like this definition: Faith is merely belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. Neither do I. However it is the last part that is mostly incorrect.

Ex. In the Bible one can find their identity in Christ. Experiences or how people may define us often challenge that and it can take much active thinking to take the Word over these. Trusting in the Word, focusing on what God says about me as what is true not what a person said is faith. Faith in the Word is faith in who wrote the Word, meaning who inspired it. This is beyond believing, it is trusting when all your senses tell you not to. The other side of trusting where faith has been tested is a deeper level of trust and faith. His word proves itself true and our relationship with God grows.

I’m not sure what you mean when you speak of evidence. Typically, it’s referred to something provable. Let me try…
Jesus said He told the disciples beforehand so that when it came true they would believe. One evidence for us is prophecy. To my knowledge the Bible is the only religious book with prophecy.
Prophecy that came true: Daniel 2 & 7
Nebuchadnezzar had a dream then couldn’t remember it. He requested the magicians etc to tell the dream and what it meant. They were about to be destroyed because they were unable to do it when Daniel stepped in asking to have time to ask God. He does and has a dream presents it to the king gets confirmation that this is the dream the king had. This could be suspect if it weren’t for the fact that Daniel also gives the interpretation. It is one of the longest prophecies in the Bible spanning from Babylon to our day something Daniel could never have predicted on his own. Giant statue of metals from gold, silver, bronze, iron and iron mixed with clay. Babylon is the head of gold, next was Medo-Persia silver, Greece bronze, Rome iron. They were noted as inferior to Babylon as silver and bronze are inferior to gold. Even though the nations that conquered the one before it are not mentioned the metal that is used to represent them are and accurately so. Babylon (is mentioned obviously) is represented by gold…”Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; inasmuch as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces.” describes Rome well.

Now compare this to Dan 7 where another dream is given. This time beasts are used to represent the same nations. Note the 3rd beast “like a leopard, which had on its back four wings of a bird” Greece represented as swift and fast. Alexander the Great had that reputation.
Also, again the 4th beast with iron teeth rightly representing the way Rome conquered.
Just a sampling of evidence.

How did I come to trust in God’s word as reliable?
I honestly can’t remember not believing that. Even at 5 I had a relationship with God-Jesus. I knew He could be trusted, I could trust His word. I did the “teenager” thing but still never doubted. Since becoming an adult I have tested the Word (I hope this doesn’t open up a new can of worms for anyone) to never fail.

Last, I gave the example of north and oak as simplistic as may be for trying to show absolute truth.

Peace,
Sallie

Consider the definition I don’t like:

Faith is merely belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking.

Does this describe your faith? For this particular discussion, let’s scrap arguing over what constitutes evidence. (Unless you’d like to discuss that.) Reason: Kenneth is here, he’s a scientist, we’ll then be discussing the definition of empirical evidence. I’m interested in what you experienced to be worthwhile evidence, for example (on my hypothesis that it is at least psychologically similar to a scientist’s experience of evidence).

Definitions you mentioned:

Faith is believing with the only evidence being that God said it in His word.

the foundation of faith in anything is based on who says it and trusting the source to be accurate

Thus you build faith on the trusting of a particular source. The trust of that source, is that based on, in your experience, a process of non-thinking, a lack of evidence? (I doubt it?) Or are there things that you consider/experience as evidence for the trustworthyness of the source? I expect the latter, and I was wondering if you could share more about that? Why did you start trusting the source that you trust?

(@Hennie, I’ll respond later. Thanks a lot for sharing! Love it. Connects to “Reduce or Wrestle” for me.)

It has been said that, in Zen practice, that one needs Great Faith, Great Doubt and Great Determination. Our habitual way of defining faith and doubt render this statement paradoxical. At this point, let Great Doubt kick in and try to determine what is ACTUALLY meant by the statement (assuming that you have enough Faith in the intentions of the framer of the statement, and the Determination to figure out what it means)

There’s a surprisingly good article by Barbara O’Brien here:
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/faithdoubt.htm

Quoting from the article quoting Sensei Sevan Ross, director of the Chicago Zen Center:

“Great Faith and Great Doubt are two ends of a spiritual walking stick. We grip one end with the grasp given to us by our Great Determination. We poke into the underbrush in the dark on our spiritual journey. This act is real spiritual practice — gripping the Faith end and poking ahead with the Doubt end of the stick. If we have no Faith, we have no Doubt. If we have no Determination, we never pick up the stick in the first place.”

I can only maybe add that, in the absence of Doubt, blind faith means you end up missing the treasures or traps that may be lying about. In the absence of Faith, doubt gets as far as calling the stick ugly, without trying to figure out what it *might* pointing towards (however waveringly). Without Determination, we don’t even get as far as this.

Also, something I recently read (I *think* in something by Karen Armstrong) is that the actual meaning of the word “belief” has shifted considerably over the course of the last few centuries. Another reference (I’d have prefered to find another one, but need to get back to work on The Thesis) states:

“… Belief used to mean “trust in God,” while faith meant “loyalty to a person based on promise or duty” (a sense preserved in keep one’s faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to “mental acceptance of something as true,” from the religious use in the sense of “things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine” (early 13c.)”
- http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=belief

As I understand it, medieval Scholasticism and ultimately, ironically, the Enlightenment, had a lot to do with this shift in meaning.

It doesn’t take much to see that there is actually a deep similarity between the older sense of “belief” in Western traditions, and that I encountered in Zen Buddhism. I would caution against having a reflexive twitch at the G-word (“trust in God”), as one might use non-theistic language to do the pointing (I kind of like “believing in Mind”, see the section “On believing in Mind” at http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/mzb/mzb04.htm as translated by D. Suzuki). I actually think, though, that the different emphasis in the advice “trust in God” is quite helpful in many ways for certain students at certain times.

(BTW articles via links like that are often not free, but it’s usually possible to find other copies, eg: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=831181812840571320&hl=en&as_sdt=2000)

@sally

Here’s a simple analogy of absolute truth. Where do you think North is (the north that typical navigators use)? North is not north because you or I say it is. North is so because of absolutes.

Ahem.

*puts on pedanto-monocle*

North is a convention. Like the meter. Or kilogram. It is only absolute by agreed-upon definition, which means that it can change. It is precisely north because you and I say it is.

Not to mention that there are many norths. Geographical north, magnetic north, galactic north…and they are not the same thing. Each planet and star has it’s own north, and they don’t point in the same direction. Not to mention that they change over time.

Same can be done with an oak piece of furniture. There are some good fakes out there. An argument could ensue over if it is really oak or not. What is the truth? It is or is not oak regardless of my opinion or belief. Does this make sense?

But you can test to see if it is oak. Members of the genus Quercus have characteristic wood characters that a plant anatomist can look for to determine if it is oak. Granted, there are very good fakes, but I think you can (generally) determine the origins of a piece of wood to a (mostly) satisfactory level of confidence.

I have a document that gives several evidences that are not subjective to prove the Bible isn’t like any other book. Some of these are scientific and provable in our physical world.

Pity you can’t find this. I would have liked to have seen this evidence.

The Bible is the reliable Word of God. Follow this thought by reading John 1. Fascinating and uplifting.

I don’t doubt the last two descriptors. But how can you be so certain of the first sentence?

@Hugo
Howzit dude. How are things? Did you ever get a chance to read that paper I linked to in #60?