Faith – a Paulist Word. Other Religions are Real Nowadays the word Faith is used to indicate Religious Belief and almost directly implies that there can be no factual basis for the Belief. Well, the Paulists have no objection to this, as from the start they realized that they had diverged away from the actual Teachings of Christ and were backed into the Faith Corner. Well, “faith” might well have been called “bu*****t”, for what it was acknowledged to mean. But I wonder that the Other Religions of the World accept this nominalization, to be accused of having no basis in reality. Every one of the Higher Religions of the World have reports of Divine Revelations, miracles, Saints and so forth. They don’t need Faith. They have a portfolio of documented events which support what becomes a reasonable assessment of reported reality. Yes, and again the protestants can be satisfied with Faith, since Protestantism has yet to enjoy its first Saint, Divine Apparition or Spectacular Miracle. But the Higher Religions of the world that have plenty of Reasons to believe are insulted by this notion of Faith. F*** Faith. We have the Vatican Library. And while the Other of the Higher Religions may be less organized (or restrictive, as the Catholic Church is sometimes guilty of throwing out Real Miracles if they conflict in the least bit with Bishop Approved Doctrine… making it so that an inordinate number of certified Miracles, Saints, and Apparitions had been the Silent Ones, where when if almost anything would have been said it would conflict, of course, with some doctrine derived from Paul.
I find it unbelievable that anybody can say that. On what basis do you trust someone who claims to have been literally visited in some way by god? Also, which religions do not require faith? A secular reading of such a religion would convince science that god exists.
Leo Volont, "Faith" is like, holding a belief for stuff that you do not know for sure as yet, but through time and effort will become apparent. Jan.
Leo, Not quite accurate. These are documented reports of claims, not reports of actuality. The difference is crucial. The issuse becomes one of investigative quality. Under independent objective logical scrutiny NO religious claim has been shown to be true. The religious though continue to assert the claims as true despite the poor quality data - this is called faith - belief in the certainty of something without adequate evidence.
Cris, did you not read Jans post? Faith is the belief in something that is true, and will eventually be proven true!
kennyJC, Yes I read it. It is nonsense. If you know something is true then you don't need to have faith in it since you can say "I know" and can show the evidence or proof. The term faith is only used when you DON'T KNOW and have no evidence or proof. Oh if only someone could really predict the future, otherwise total nonsense and wishful thinking.
Well, actually you describe getting used to the nonsense. As I point out time and time again Paulism is actually very evil and it always was stupid. But people use Faith to shield themselves from what they really should be paying attention to. Jesus gave us warnings about Paul that Christians ignore because of their Faith. The other Religions are being more sensible in demanding actual demonstrations from God. We see such a history even in the Bible. Moses had to prove himself. Elijah proved himself. Elisa proved himself. Jesus wasn't shy about proving himself. Only when we get to Paul do we have Religion without proof or miracle... and a Religion that consciously advances Evil by advocating Murder as a means of attaining a morally unconditional forgiveness of Sins, which, if one can add 2 plus 2, one knows means that it give a Religious Sanction to continued sinning. This is why the Bishops find it impossible to discipline Baby Raping Priests, because what is Christianity, after all, if it is not the Effective Permission to Sin. If sins ARE forgiven, then why shouldn't Priests rape babies?
Leo, Didn't Paul have an actual religous experience though on Damascus road? "Not me but Christ in me"? I've always interpreted that as some kind of enlightenment experience. -- What do you make of it?
Well, consult the Book of Acts. Luke, an educated man, gives us three DIFFERENT accounts of the Damascus Road experience. That tells me that Luke had suspected that Paul had been lying the entire time, and presents every single one of Pauls various explanation in order to tip off his better educated readers that something about Paul was amiss. Then we can look at the various versions of the Damascus Road Experience and find that really none of it is any good. Jesus comes out of the Blue and tells Paul that he is his Enemy. Now, I really can't see how that rates as a Conversion. It is not as though Paul changed his mind and began to Preach the Teachings of Jesus. Paul makes it a point to say, through Luke in Acts, and then in his own letters, that he had completely IGNORED what the Real Apostles taught concerning the Actual Teachings of Christ, and only taught what he himself happened to think. Basically Paul taught Pharisee Religion, what Jesus had spent his Life arguing against. And remember, Paul may not have been sincere. Remember how he came into the Christian Fold, really. You see Peter had gotten into trouble for murdering people in his office whom he had accused of holding out on him... not donating ALL of their property into his coffers. Well, the Rest of the Congregation didn't see it like Peter and immediately (the very next paragaph in the Book of Acts) takes to the Street and Elects a new Leadership Council, the head of which is Stephen. Well, this is where Paul comes in and kills Stephen, thus handing over the Christian Community back to Peter. This is why Peter sponsored Paul's entry into the Church, NOT because he was a good Christian, but because he save his butt and he owed him a favor. What Leader in the Near East can't use a good Killer on the payroll. But Paul needed to brush up on his Christian Credentials in order to collect on Peter's job offer. So we have the fabricated Damascus Road Adventure. Incidentally, Peter was not really in charge of anything. The Gospels more or less show him to be problematic clown, a butt of jokes, or a living example of all that is wrong with the Hired Help. My feeling is that Peter was extentuall glorified ONLY because he subsequently sponsored Paul. you see, Paul would have been nobody without the approval and sponsorship of Peter. Well, Peter's approval would also count for nothing unless History could be Re-Written to make of him some Central Religious Figure. but a finer look at the Gospels indicates that Paul was nobody and Peter too was nobody. Even in the Book of Acts, by Chapter 15 we see that Peter is Head of Nothing but is appealing to James as Leader and Head of the Church. One wonders how the Catholics, who claim Peter as First Pope get around this fact that Peter is obviously here described as a secondary character. Also, it has always troubled me that Paul's Church's, even Paul's Letters never bother to give the full text, or even much of a reference to the Letter of Establishment for the Gentile Churches mentioned in the 15 Chapter of the Book of Acts. We are told that Paul's Congregations were Authorized. But the letter didn't seem to survive even 5 minutes. It was given to Barnabus, as the Leader, but in the very next chapter of Acts, Paul picks a fight with Barnabus and walks out. This would lead ME to believe that while the Congregations of Barnabus were Authorized, that Paul himself became something of a Renegade, an Apostate rather than an Apostle. Indeed, John congradulates the Congregation at Ephesus, in Revelation Chapter 1, for throwing out The False Apostle, and then we have Paul telling Timothy that he was tossed out of Ephesus. Sounds like the same guy to me. And then we have all the anger in Paul's letters that argues against competing teachers of 'different' Gospels. Why do we side with Paul instead of supposing that the Teachers that Paul was objecting to were the actual Apostles of Jesus Christ?
Actually the first proponents of the Doctrine of Faith were not quite so cavalier. They insisted that Faith was necessary because of the Problematic Nature of the Object of Faith. If it were TRUE, then why would one need FAITH. Faith was seen as a virtue in and of itself. yes, by the turn of the High Middle Ages, some of the Scholastics were beginning to argue that the Intellect and Philosophical Method could Support Faith by proving it True, but the best Saint of the Time, Bernard of Clairvaux, saw Spirituality and Mysticism down a completely different road from Intellectual Scholasticism and warned that an over-emphasis in dry philosophy would eventually weaken both Religion and Spirituality. he proved correct. Indeed, there was something of a Great Debate. Abalard was set to go up against Bernard himself, at the University in Paris. Bernard has objected to the very idea of having a debate, since, well, to participate in an Intellectual Debate in the first place was to concede his point even before he was to begin. But as it happened, Abelard was the first to present his case.... speaking brilliantly for hours... he was no dummy, that Abelard. When it came Saint Bernard's turn to speak, he simply looked over at Abelard. then something snapped in Abelard. He suddenly saw indeed that Spirituality and Intellectuality were different, and that spirituality was more to the point of it all, in fact. Abelard apologized and handed in his resignation to the University and retired to the Monasteries. However, it made no point upon his Students who hardly missed a step in advancing Scholasticism toward the direction of Skepticism and then Materialism, until Civilization had fully collapsed to where we are today, living by War Corruption and Exploitation.
Cris, Cris, the "certainty" aspect pertains to the subjective. For example someone claims God has spoken to them, would make them certain that God is real, and as such would increase their faith in God of their particular religion. There are "varying degrees" of "faith" as there are other aspects of human ability, not everyone who believes in God claims that they know for certain God exists, some "believe" God exists. Jan.
I have faith, therefore I am, you are, and everything is. -BTW- Cris, KennyJC, you completely misread Jan Ardena's post up there. Esp. KennyJC. Lesson in English: something becoming apparent after some uncertainty does not indicate whether or not it will be shown true, or false. It just means "things will become clear." How do you expect people to trust what they read from you if you display such a blatant lack of understanding of a very basic point (and grammar)?
