BK Religions
- Thread starter Dor
- Start date
Saltmeister
The Dangerous Dinner
Hey careful here.
You should also realise that the term "Christian" is subjective.
Whether a person is "Christian" is not defined by a set of rules.
Nor is faith defined by a set of rules.
The terms "Christian" and "faith" are both personal. They are defined by what they mean to you.
Language is a structural and systematic framework for conveying meaning, but human thinking is not restricted by such a framework. Sometimes what we feel and experience cannot be quantified precisely in words. The framework doesn't always fit perfectly.
I don't think we should put so much emphasis on getting the precise meaning of words. If I tried to define "Christian" or "faith," my definition may not make sense to you. Your's may not make sense to me. God made us all different and likewise we see different things as important. Our minds filter out different aspects of the universe (as irrelevant detail) and what comes out on the other end is what we consider as defining that universe.
"Christian" and "faith" are supposed to define a concept that is abstractly and vaguely common to two or more people, so trying to define (quantify) it doesn't make sense.
Anyway, please stay cool. Play fair. You're not the only one here who's full of ideas. Don't get so excited. Let people discover it for themselves. People might think you're picking a fight. You need to slowwww dowwwn..........
hmmm....and.....is there a problem?
Hey Wil ... you are smokin!
Saltmeister:
You should also realise that the term "Christian" is subjective.
I don't think so - if it is then in the end it means nothing. Christ never said 'make of this what you will...' - he always pushed his people to understand what He meant, not what they made of what He meant?
Whether a person is "Christian" is not defined by a set of rules.
I can thinbk of two, from the Man Himself.
Nor is faith defined by a set of rules.
Again, I can think of sharp words from the Man which state quite the reverse, in no uncertain fashion.
The terms "Christian" and "faith" are both personal. They are defined by what they mean to you.
I would rather say the term 'Christian' and 'faith' express a paradigm, a perfection, embodied in the Incarnate Jesus, which someone who calls himself a Christian should strive towards.
A paradigm which is acknowledged, honoured and revered by the Masters of every authentic Spiritual Tradition (A Zen master heard the beatitudes and cried "That man is enlightened - I have been teaching that all my life!).
If it becomes personal, or subjective, then one begins to negotiate the paradigm into more amenable and acceptable, and desirable, terms. This is why religions are so adamant on their principles - invariably the argument is to water the thing down.
Language is a structural and systematic framework for conveying meaning, but human thinking is not restricted by such a framework.
If that is so, how are you sure you have understood the message correctly? Are you not assuming you have a right or viable meaning, attained by a system that is fallible and liable to error? Christ might as likely say to you 'that's not what I meant at all.' - where is your certitude?
I don't think we should put so much emphasis on getting the precise meaning of words. If I tried to define "Christian" or "faith," my definition may not make sense to you. Your's may not make sense to me. God made us all different and likewise we see different things as important. Our minds filter out different aspects of the universe (as irrelevant detail) and what comes out on the other end is what we consider as defining that universe.
Then we're back to square one - whatever Jesus said, we define the universe as we did before ... I don't think He would have made that mistake?
"Christian" and "faith" are supposed to define a concept that is abstractly and vaguely common to two or more people, so trying to define (quantify) it doesn't make sense.
Again I disagree - there are concrete examples everywhere that people can readily agree to, without doubt..
... Not trying to be argumentative (well, I am - but in a good natured way) but if, for a moment, we take Scripture and the incarnation as a mode of revelation, is not your philsophy saying we cannot understand it? That rather negates the whole point of Revelation.
In all I would say that is a very post-Enlightenment philosophy, and I can suggest a few philosophers who would argue that it is inherently flawed.
At base - if all, by your system, is uncertain - then how are you sure that this uncertainty applies to all?
Thomas
Saltmeister:
You should also realise that the term "Christian" is subjective.
I don't think so - if it is then in the end it means nothing. Christ never said 'make of this what you will...' - he always pushed his people to understand what He meant, not what they made of what He meant?
Whether a person is "Christian" is not defined by a set of rules.
I can thinbk of two, from the Man Himself.
Nor is faith defined by a set of rules.
Again, I can think of sharp words from the Man which state quite the reverse, in no uncertain fashion.
The terms "Christian" and "faith" are both personal. They are defined by what they mean to you.
I would rather say the term 'Christian' and 'faith' express a paradigm, a perfection, embodied in the Incarnate Jesus, which someone who calls himself a Christian should strive towards.
A paradigm which is acknowledged, honoured and revered by the Masters of every authentic Spiritual Tradition (A Zen master heard the beatitudes and cried "That man is enlightened - I have been teaching that all my life!).
If it becomes personal, or subjective, then one begins to negotiate the paradigm into more amenable and acceptable, and desirable, terms. This is why religions are so adamant on their principles - invariably the argument is to water the thing down.
Language is a structural and systematic framework for conveying meaning, but human thinking is not restricted by such a framework.
If that is so, how are you sure you have understood the message correctly? Are you not assuming you have a right or viable meaning, attained by a system that is fallible and liable to error? Christ might as likely say to you 'that's not what I meant at all.' - where is your certitude?
I don't think we should put so much emphasis on getting the precise meaning of words. If I tried to define "Christian" or "faith," my definition may not make sense to you. Your's may not make sense to me. God made us all different and likewise we see different things as important. Our minds filter out different aspects of the universe (as irrelevant detail) and what comes out on the other end is what we consider as defining that universe.
Then we're back to square one - whatever Jesus said, we define the universe as we did before ... I don't think He would have made that mistake?
"Christian" and "faith" are supposed to define a concept that is abstractly and vaguely common to two or more people, so trying to define (quantify) it doesn't make sense.
Again I disagree - there are concrete examples everywhere that people can readily agree to, without doubt..
... Not trying to be argumentative (well, I am - but in a good natured way) but if, for a moment, we take Scripture and the incarnation as a mode of revelation, is not your philsophy saying we cannot understand it? That rather negates the whole point of Revelation.
In all I would say that is a very post-Enlightenment philosophy, and I can suggest a few philosophers who would argue that it is inherently flawed.
At base - if all, by your system, is uncertain - then how are you sure that this uncertainty applies to all?
Thomas
lunamoth
Episcopalian
cav said:
Wondering what you all think of this. Faith is indeed a gift from God, but I would not want to leave the impression that those who find themselves lacking in faith (trust) have somehow been denied, or left unchosen by God. I think that the gift of faith is there for all to take; the difference is in making the choice to trust. I think that's why in John we hear so much about believing to be saved. Believing is making the conscious choice to trust the Way. Draw close to God so God can draw close to you. It's like a dance. Who leads? Who follows? When the music starts you both move together.
just a thought,
luna
Many are called, few are "chosen" (meaning few accept the calling). Grace is there for us all, you are correct. We must choose to accept that grace, then act on it.
I agree with your thoughts on this Luna.
v/r
Joshua
Ok, I see what you're getting at, but isn't there something in the Bible about it being impossible to turn away from God after being spoken to by the Holy Spirit? Something along those lines.
God promised man, He would not interfere with man's free will. He said nothing about influencing man's heart however...
But there is also the notice that God said, pertaining to the heart of man. Some will harden their hearts, to the point of stone. That implies free will (a decision), to ignore or reject what is offered.
v/r
Joshua
Would you tell me where that promise can be found.
I can't argue with that, and I guess we both know I want to.Quahom1 said:
Here is a start:
"How does humanity affect the providence of God? (1) God works through people who voluntarily conform to the purpose or will of God (e.g., taking the Gospel to the world, Mark 16:15-16). (2) God will use other persons to achieve his will if one through his own free moral agency does not do the will of God (e.g., Esther 4:15)."
v/r
Joshua
As for (1) it is only your assumption that they were voluntarily conforming
(2)"God will use other persons to achieve his will", I thought you said that God promised he would not interfere.
Interesting what's written in Esther 4:11
As for (1), no that too is biblical. Consider Mary, Job, Esther, Abraham, Moses, Noah, Joshua, Hosea, Paul, Peter, John, Lazarus, David, Enoch...they all said yes. As for (2), God did not interfere. He asked, and they said yes. He did not make their lives miserable at all (IOW, He did not compel them to act according to His will).
Oh, some of them doubted at first. But then, who wouldn't? And it wasn't doubt of God, but doubt of self to carryout what God designed for them...that is when God assured them His "grace" would be sufficient, and they accepted their charge.
v/r
Joshua
SO WHAT? People can say yes, but not of their own free will. People can also believe they act of their own free will, but do not.
If you use(your word) person A to get what you want from person B, then you are interfering with person B. You said God promised not to do this.Quahom1 said:
Oh. I guess there is no sense in continuing this dialogue, if you think we do not have free will.
God on the other hand will not push a person. He backs away. You are free to do as you see fit.
v/r
Joshua
C
cyberpi
Guest
The definition of Faith I often see is: a belief, a religion, or believe or trust in someone or something. I don’t deny that those words get a person close. But if Faith is a gift and Faith is a belief, then how is a belief given? If Faith is the trust or the belief in someone or something, then how is that given to another person? How does God give Faith? How do you give Faith to another person?
By Love: I give you this blender because it is what I wanted for myself.
By Hate: I give you this lump of coal because it is what I hate.
By Truth: I give you this nutritious food because it is better for you than the box of chocolates that you wanted.
By Lie: I give you this sexy lingerie because I care about your needs.
By Hope: I give you this cookbook because I hope you will become a better cook.
By Fear: I give you this safety helmet because I fear you are going to crash.
By Control: I give you this punishment so that you won't do it again.
By Faith: What can I give you... how can I serve you? Or, what seed would you like to plant?
As I read it, the word Faith nearly means: BK style… Have it your way. As I read it, having Faith placed in you means being served per your will, and I think placing Faith in others means serving them per their will. That doesn’t mean the servant is NOT selective. In whom did Jesus (pbuh) place Faith? If a person knows how to give the good gifts, then who would deny it in kind from him?
From St. Theresa's perspective (of Calcutta), she would have disagreed. She definitely did not get it her way, neither did those she cared for, but she never lost her faith either...
No BK there.
C
cyberpi
Guest
I seek the definition that Jesus (pbuh) described. You are welcome to use examples 1800+ years later, but I do not necessarily attribute it to Christianity.