Reasonable faith

Sunny C. said:
I understand what you're saying, but Paul also talks about the natural law. The law that is written into our very being as opposed to an externally enforced, ritualistic law. Do you know what I'm talking about?
Click to expand...
I think so.
And, in considering the nature of the Logos it stands to reason that there is a natural way that everything works which one, theoretically anyway, can participate in and with.
Click to expand...
Yeah.
That which opposes the natural law, I would say, is the goop. Paul recognized that he himself had goop on the brain, but when he says that he has to die daily to himself so that he can live in Christ, I think he's referring to that which prevents one from living in the light of the Logos.
Click to expand...
Sin?
So in that sense he's trying to be a natural man (under my definition.
Click to expand...
You're losing me...so it's a good thing to be natural? Or is being natural something to overcome to understand G-d.

Was Paul lamenting his un-naturalness? Complaining about having to die daily?

My impression of the text is that he's looking at being natural in a perjorative sense.

Thoughts?
 
I'm getting dangerously close to puppeteering Paul. That would be disingenuous on my part. I really shouldn't be speculating on the essence or actions of the Holy Spirit either since what I have in mind doesn't strictly equate with the Christian conception of it. And I can't comment on the nature of sin since the concept of sin is inconsequential to my way of thinking as well. So I'm kind of in a quandry as to what I can, in honest good conscience say.

I'll try to come up with something that reflects my own thoughts on the matter, but I'll have to think about it.
 
Hey Mark,

Maybe you could give me your definition of natural man and then we could work from within that context? I'm just afraid we're going to wind up talking past each other; using the same terms but meaning different things.
 
Sunny C. said:
Hey Mark,

Maybe you could give me your definition of natural man and then we could work from within that context?
Click to expand...

Sure. To me, the natural man is the "old, fleshy" man. the one before baptism of water and the Spirit. He doesn't understand the Spirit and doesn't realize any need for it. After baptism, the Spirit leads the "new man" into all truth, so his "eyes are open" spiritually.

I guess sort of like Siddharta (sp) sees a poor sick man and he's never seen one before and suddenly he has to know how to end suffering. He never thought about that before(neither did I). He's always been natural man.

You go from being natural man to spiritual man with natural man still on the inside, still wanting out.

?
 
Oh, OK I see what you mean. What was the question again? Oh yeah

Does that make spiritual nature, being "un-natural", unreasonable?
Click to expand...

I guess, if you equate the old sinful man with reason. So that would make being born again a process of losing one's capacity for reason?
 
Dondi said:
What constitutes reasonable faith?
Click to expand...

What seems like a million posts ago I suggested this thread be moved here to allow a freer discussion of the OP. Sorry about that Dondi! Anyway, it’s making for very interesting reading and I reckon I should put something else into the pot, seeing as I requested the thread to be moved. I just thought I’d post the Kalama Sutta, which I’m vaguely surprised hasn’t been referred to yet, the alleged Buddhist “Charter of Free Inquiry”. I’ve taken this from a brief article by Bhikkhu Bodhi, to be found here:


A Look at the Kalama Sutta



“The Kalamas, citizens of the town of Kesaputta, had been visited by religious teachers of divergent views, each of whom would propound his own doctrines and tear down the doctrines of his predecessors. This left the Kalamas perplexed, and thus when "the recluse Gotama," reputed to be an Awakened One, arrived in their township, they approached him in the hope that he might be able to dispel their confusion.

…
The passage that has been cited so often runs as follows: "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing, nor upon tradition, nor upon rumor, nor upon scripture, nor upon surmise, nor upon axiom, nor upon specious reasoning, nor upon bias toward a notion pondered over, nor upon another's seeming ability, nor upon the consideration 'The monk is our teacher.' When you yourselves know: 'These things are bad, blamable, censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them... When you yourselves know: 'These things are good, blameless, praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."
Thus the discourse to the Kalamas offers an acid test for gaining confidence in the Dhamma as a viable doctrine of deliverance. We begin with an immediately verifiable teaching whose validity can be attested by anyone with the moral integrity to follow it through to its conclusions, namely, that the defilements cause harm and suffering both personal and social, that their removal brings peace and happiness, and that the practices taught by the Buddha are effective means for achieving their removal. By putting this teaching to a personal test, with only a provisional trust in the Buddha as one's collateral, one eventually arrives at a firmer, experientially grounded confidence in the liberating and purifying power of the Dhamma. This increased confidence in the teaching brings along a deepened faith in the Buddha as teacher, and thus disposes one to accept on trust those principles he enunciates that are relevant to the quest for awakening, even when they lie beyond one's own capacity for verification.
Partly in reaction to dogmatic religion, partly in subservience to the reigning paradigm of objective scientific knowledge, it has become fashionable to hold, by appeal to the Kalama Sutta, that the Buddha's teaching dispenses with faith and formulated doctrine and asks us to accept only what we can personally verify. This interpretation of the sutta, however, forgets that the advice the Buddha gave the Kalamas was contingent upon the understanding that they were not yet prepared to place faith in him and his doctrine; it also forgets that the sutta omits, for that very reason, all mention of right view and of the entire perspective that opens up when right view is acquired. It offers instead the most reasonable counsel on wholesome living possible when the issue of ultimate beliefs has been put into brackets.
What can be justly maintained is that those aspects of the Buddha's teaching that come within the purview of our ordinary experience can be personally confirmed within experience, and that this confirmation provides a sound basis for placing faith in those aspects of the teaching that necessarily transcend ordinary experience. Faith in the Buddha's teaching is never regarded as an end in itself nor as a sufficient guarantee of liberation, but only as the starting point for an evolving process of inner transformation that comes to fulfillment in personal insight.”

An annoying cut-and-paste job I know, but I feel it’s germaine to the OP if nothing else!

s.

 
Thanks Snoop.

I can draw many parallels with faith as it relates to Christ. Similarly confronted by men of tradition Jesus said, "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." - John 5:39-40

What I believe Christ was saying is that it is not enough to have the knowledge and believe in what you read (for elsewhere the scriptures tell us that the devils believe and they tremble. Indeed, Satan in his temptation of Christ had a thorough knowledge of the scriptures), but there is an element of knowledge that can only come about from experiencing the transcending truths in the embodiment of one's life.

There seems to be two ways to approach Christ: Out of fear, or out of love. Both can lead to the same end. Observe a typical process I've seen in many Christian:

Out of fear (probably the most common approach):

1) One is introduced to the concepts of heaven and hell.
2) One is told of the dangers of hell.
3) One is introduced to the concept of sin.
4) One realizes that they are not good enough of heaven and therefore face hell
5) One is presented with Christ as Savior, who died for their sins, and rose from the grave, and will save them from Hell.
6) One is told that if he/she believes in Christ and confesses Christ, he/she will be saved from hell.
7) Once saved, the person learns to follow Christ through abiding by His commandments.
8) There is a paradigm shift from fear to love as the person sees the truth of Christ's love develop in their own lives, and instead of fear of hell, it is love of the Lord as their life improves and they see the value in living to selflessly serve others.
9) They learn to love God with a fervent heart and develop a relationship with Him whereby the commandments are a delight rather than a burden.

Out of love;

1) One is caught in a desperate situation without hope
2) God through an act of mercy comes to the person through some kind of intervention through either another person or circumstances.
3) One recognizes the hand of God in the situation and draws toward God.
4) One learns about the effects of sin and it's consequences, that seeks to destroy their lives.
5) Learns that Christ can free them from their sins and their wretched life.
6) Becomes a believer in Christ, and finds a new life in Him, free from the burdens and addictions of sin that sought to destroy them.
7) There is a paradogm shift from despair to love as they see truth of Christ's love develop in their own lives, and instead of despair, it is love of the Lord as their life improves and they see the value in living to selflessly serve others, especially empathethic with those who are going through the same trials as they.
7) They learn to love God with a fervent heart and develop a relationship with Him whereby the commandments are a delight rather than a burden.

I've seen both approaches work in the lives of folks I know.
 
17th Angel said:
In EVERY culture?! What about us evil British people? :)
Click to expand...

British heroes of mine include George Bernard Shaw, Newton, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, J.B.S.Haldane( though he later became an Indian).
 
Dondi said:
What I believe Christ was saying is that it is not enough to have the knowledge and believe in what you read (for elsewhere the scriptures tell us that the devils believe and they tremble. Indeed, Satan in his temptation of Christ had a thorough knowledge of the scriptures), but there is an element of knowledge that can only come about from experiencing the transcending truths in the embodiment of one's life.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think I know (!) what you mean. Knowledge and a belief in the truth of the knowledge is of itself no more than an intellectual exercise. The truth that cannot be put into words can only come by putting the belief into action by living it.

There seems to be two ways to approach Christ: Out of fear, or out of love. Both can lead to the same end.
Click to expand...


Managing to reach the end point in your two routes is of course what makes the journey worthwhile. Personally I think a journey stimulated into action by a fear is regrettable, but maybe in some people this is what it “takes” to start the journey. As long as ultimately the person doesn’t stay in the “negative zone” I can see the value in it being a motivator. As a “comparison” note, I noticed how both Christian routes actually begin with something negative; the danger of hell and the desperate situation and similarly in Buddhism the “route” begins with the statement that there is dukkha. (dukkha being difficult to translate well and fully into English but essentially referring to the general pervasive dissatisfaction with life).

s.
 
So how does one explain these verses?

Mark 11:13-14 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.

Mark 11:20-22 And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots. And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have FAITH in God.

Matthew 17:19-20 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If you have FAITH as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Is that Faith in the book? The religion? The ritual?

Matthew 17:15-18 Lord, have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water. And I brought him to thy disciples, and they could not cure him. Then Jesus answered and said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I suffer you? Bring him hither to me. And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

Love? Fear?
 
cyberpi said:
So how does one explain these verses?
Click to expand...

Hi cyberpi –

They have to be understood in context – the curse upon the fig tree 'can' be considered the Temple practice in Jerusalem ...

... what is evident in Scripture is no miracle recorded is purely a display of power, nor is it purely a response to faith, but rather the miracles point to the teaching of the Kingdom, and the Immanence of the Divine.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Hi cyberpi –

They have to be understood in context – the curse upon the fig tree 'can' be considered the Temple practice in Jerusalem ...

... what is evident in Scripture is no miracle recorded is purely a display of power, nor is it purely a response to faith, but rather the miracles point to the teaching of the Kingdom, and the Immanence of the Divine.

Thomas
Click to expand...
... AND this?

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
 
cyberpi said:
... AND this?

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Click to expand...

Of course, the first and only prayer is and should be "Thy will be done... "

Thomas
 
17th, stop being so obtuse, you know bloomin' well what I'm like, and what I mean! ;)

If you're asking me personally, yes, I would like to see an age in which humanity lived according to the Will of God, before the Coming of the Kingdom, before that 'twinkling' in which everything will be changed.

Call me sentimental (a hopeless optimist, even), but I would dearly like to see this old cosmos of ours step up to the challenge, to take on the challenge of that great adventure, of a life lived in selfless love of neighbour, in which 'violence, death, pain, sickness, poverty...' will be transfigured ...

I hope and pray that when that day comes, we will be like the wise virgins, not the foolish ones, and ready to meet the man with joy, not jump out of our skins, caught in the act ...

Thomas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top