Prayer Mt 18

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not word games.
Whatever you serve, you serve.... it determines your life.

Maybe, but you want to call it god when my belief system looks nothing like your belief system or your definition of who god is. I don't serve any gods that is just word games. Everyone actions are determined by what they believe to be true. What do you think I serve? Rationality, Skepticality, Good evidence?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Maybe, but you want to call it god when my belief system looks nothing like your belief system or your definition of who god is. I don't serve any gods that is just word games. Everyone actions are determined by what they believe to be true. What do you think I serve? Rationality, Skepticality, Good evidence?

The Living Yahweh says you serve sin. Subject to the prince of the power of the air, the devil. The gods of this world direct your thoughts and steps/ actions/ and so forth, according to all Scripture, and the Creator of all Life.

If you were different, and did not serve sin, you would not need to be saved from sin.

If any man besides Jesus was different, and did not serve sin, Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The Living Yahweh says you serve sin. Subject to the prince of the power of the air, the devil. The gods of this world direct your thoughts and steps/ actions/ and so forth, according to all Scripture, and the Creator of all Life.

If you were different, and did not serve sin, you would not need to be saved from sin.

If any man besides Jesus was different, and did not serve sin, Jesus would not have been crucified for our sins.

Give me sufficient reasons to believe Yahweh exists. Until then this is just nonsense. The thing is when you Christians say things like this it just gives more reason for us to not believe it is true becasue we know we don't serve sin or the devil. Call me a liar all you want it does not provide good evidence that your god exists.

 

[cloudyday2]

So, cloudy, how many actual mountains have been moved since Jesus said this? Do we want to count Mt. Vesuvius and Mt. St. Helens? Somehow (to put it mildly), I don't think the moving of actual mountains is what Jesus had in mind, nor did He have in in mind, even as a suggestion, that He meant anyone can just pray for anything. No, however parabolic and metaphorical His language, Jesus was getting at something a little more specific, something more germane to spiritual warfare, but we like to read these words a different way and turn them into a 'blank check' for what any of us would like to have. And I do understand why: a number of folks have some long-term hardship that is difficult to deal with. And I empathize. I truly do, but despite our individual sufferings and our shortcomings in interpreting the bible, this doesn't mean we can ignore the intricacies of the biblical text, even with a statement like the one you're picking on here in Matthew 17.

So what do you think he meant? His disciples were asking him why they had not been able to exorcise a demon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what do you think he meant? His disciples were asking him why they had not been able to exorcise a demon.

In the context of Matthew 17:14-23, I'm thinking that Jesus was telling His main disciples that they failed to exorcise the demon from the boy because they need to put more trust in Him; and the implication is that Jesus was exhorting them to be willing to grow in their trust so God would work through them.

I think it's a mistake, however, to take this and immediately marry it to any other passages we think sounds similar---like beads on a string---and inflate it into the idea that if we just have enough faith we'll get what we ask for. It's especially a mistake if what we ask for "in faith" is for our own purposes and not necessarily those that God would want for us to pursue.

Notice, too, that in this passage Jesus doesn't direct His criticism really at the father whose son was possessed but rather at His disciples who tried to cast out the demon but failed. One would think Jesus would simply have rebuked the father in failing his son somehow, but He didn't. Surely the father should have had 'more faith' in this situation, too, right? But no, that doesn't seem to be the sentiment that is expressed in this passage.

So, the mountain language metaphorically represents 'demonic powers' that may be presiding in or around our lives, and we need to find 'real' faith, even if it's small, to work with God in standing against those powers.

 

[cloudyday2]

In the context of Matthew 17:14-23, I'm thinking that Jesus was telling His main disciples that they failed to exorcise the demon from the boy because they need to put more trust in Him; and the implication is that Jesus was exhorting them to be willing to grow in their trust so God would work through them.

I think it's a mistake, however, to take this and immediately marry it to any other passages we think sounds similar---like beads on a string---and inflate it into the idea that if we just have enough faith we'll get what we ask for. It's especially a mistake if what we ask for "in faith" is for our own purposes and not necessarily those that God would want for us to pursue.

Notice, too, that in this passage Jesus doesn't direct His criticism really at the father whose son was possessed but rather at His disciples who tried to cast out the demon but failed. One would think Jesus would simply have rebuked the father in failing his son somehow, but He didn't. Surely the father should have had 'more faith' in this situation, too, right? But no, that doesn't seem to be the sentiment that is expressed in this passage.

So, the mountain language metaphorically represents 'demonic powers' that may be presiding in or around our lives, and we need to find 'real' faith, even if it's small, to work with God in standing against those powers.

I suspect that this is an Aramaic pun. Maybe somebody here would know if there is some similarity in the word for mountain/hill and demon/illness/etc?

Another wild guess: an article I noticed claimed that the Aramaic for mountain and field are identical. Maybe Jesus was saying the disciples could change a mountain into a flat field, and maybe the mountain was Mt. Hermon with its connection to the fallen angels.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suspect that this is an Aramaic pun. Maybe somebody here would know if there is some similarity in the word for mountain/hill and demon/illness/etc?

Another wild guess: an article I noticed claimed that the Aramaic for mountain and field are identical. Maybe Jesus was saying the disciples could change a mountain into a flat field, and maybe the mountain was Mt. Hermon with its connection to the fallen angels.

It could very well be. I'd also chalk it up to a form of Jewish prophetic speech.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Right, why is your interpretation correct? Other Christians will disagree with you on this.

Context is helpful. At the start of chapter 18,

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus..."

Jesus isn't speaking generically to anyone, but specifically to His disciples, i.e., the Apostles. It's part of what is referred to as the Keys of the Kingdom. We compare it to what Jesus says in John ch. 20 to His Apostles, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Context is helpful. At the start of chapter 18,

"At that time the disciples came to Jesus..."

Jesus isn't speaking generically to anyone, but specifically to His disciples, i.e., the Apostles. It's part of what is referred to as the Keys of the Kingdom. We compare it to what Jesus says in John ch. 20 to His Apostles, "Whoever's sins you forgive are forgiven them".

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, but as I say other Christians will disagree. How do you know your interpretation is correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok, but as I say other Christians will disagree. How do you know your interpretation is correct.

People disagree about all kinds of things, and not just the bible. Being the bible is a 'book,' like any human communication, there can be misunderstanding. That's the nature of human communication, all of which gets into Communications Theory, along with the extent and qualities of Hermeneutics, not to mention various other aspects of human cognition and epistemology. The bible isn't a magic book, so in my estimation, it's kind of stupid for people to expect some 'magical' formulation that would somehow, all by its magical self, to instantly enable everyone to understand various ancient religious fragments of meaning and communication. NO, in the final analysis, the claim to 'but it's all just mass confusion' is a smoke screen and a partial excuse.

The upshot in all of this is that for someone like yourself, the more time you spend on here, you just show that you have less of an excuse. Why? Because if you've got the time and intelligence (and I think you do) to be on CF arguing left and right somehow by having time to have already thought enough to have complaints about the bible, then you have time to study and deliberate MUCH MORE DEEPLY AND WIDELY than you have thus far done.

So, every time you sign on here to assert something, you just demonstrate, quite evidentially to everyone, that you have at least some amount of time to ... "think further, more deeply, and more academically" than you have thus far done.

Do I point this out to shame you in public? No, no, no, not at all! But in my effort to help you come back to the faith, I'm trying to point out that you need to be accountable to the realization that some of the rest of us see that you could do more for yourself in this matter on just a human level. You have the intelligence and you have the time. So, get crackin'!

 

[ViaCrucis]

Ok, but as I say other Christians will disagree. How do you know your interpretation is correct.

I don't have some kind of impeccable certainty, so I don't "know" my interpretation is correct. But given the context, and the historic understanding of the passage as held by the Christian Church down through the centuries I am reasonably confident that what Christianity has historically believed is more reliable than innovative interpretations, often introduced for the purpose of contradicting historic teaching; in particular for the purpose of not being "Roman". I don't consider "not Roman Catholic" to be a valid basis for how to do biblical exegesis and theology.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don't have some kind of impeccable certainty, so I don't "know" my interpretation is correct. But given the context, and the historic understanding of the passage as held by the Christian Church down through the centuries I am reasonably confident that what Christianity has historically believed is more reliable than innovative interpretations, often introduced for the purpose of contradicting historic teaching; in particular for the purpose of not being "Roman". I don't consider "not Roman Catholic" to be a valid basis for how to do biblical exegesis and theology.

-CryptoLutheran

Can you see how this looks to people outside the Christianity? No one really knows if they have t he correct interpretation becasue Christians differ on all aspects of doctrine, even salvation. Then when you add supernatural claims of revelation it becomes quite a mess and no way to know what the bible says.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

People disagree about all kinds of things, and not just the bible. Being the bible is a 'book,' like any human communication, there can be misunderstanding. That's the nature of human communication, all of which gets into Communications Theory, along with the extent and qualities of Hermeneutics, not to mention various other aspects of human cognition and epistemology. The bible isn't a magic book, so in my estimation, it's kind of stupid for people to expect some 'magical' formulation that would somehow, all by its magical self, to instantly enable everyone to understand various ancient religious fragments of meaning and communication. NO, in the final analysis, the claim to 'but it's all just mass confusion' is a smoke screen and a partial excuse.

The bible is not just a book. It's a book that is claimed to be divinely inspired. You have you way to understand it but a thousand other Christians have their own way to understand it. You want to use fields of study that most people in the word don't have time to study becasue of their situation. That makes it unaccessible to much of the world. Is that what God intended?

The upshot in all of this is that for someone like yourself, the more time you spend on here, you just show that you have less of an excuse. Why? Because if you've got the time and intelligence (and I think you do) to be on CF arguing left and right somehow by having time to have already thought enough to have complaints about the bible, then you have time to study and deliberate MUCH MORE DEEPLY AND WIDELY than you have thus far done.

Why should I spend my time on Christianity and not another religion? Which one do I dedicate my time to? I studied for 18 years as a christian and in the end it was no good evidence for belief.

So, every time you sign on here to assert something, you just demonstrate, quite evidentially to everyone, that you have at least some amount of time to ... "think further, more deeply, and more academically" than you have thus far done.

How much study does a person need to understand god? If this is what your god requires then most people in earth cannot know about god.

Do I point this out to shame you in public? No, no, no, not at all! But in my effort to help you come back to the faith, I'm trying to point out that you need to be accountable to the realization that some of the rest of us see that you could do more for yourself in this matter on just a human level. You have the intelligence and you have the time. So, get crackin'!

Again why spend my time on Christianity?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The bible is not just a book. It's a book that is claimed to be divinely inspired. You have you way to understand it but a thousand other Christians have their own way to understand it. You want to use fields of study that most people in the word don't have time to study becasue of their situation. That makes it unaccessible to much of the world. Is that what God intended?

I'm not going to have an answer to every single question you can pull out of your skull since the Biblical books and letters weren't written to provide answers to every single question that any one single person could possibly come up with. However, I think there's way more than enough indication in the biblical contents to tell us that God has purposely intended for each person to learn and grow along average means of education, and not through some kind of instantaneous, 'magical' processes (despite what some people who claim to be Christian might also claim about their understanding about the Bible).

Why should I spend my time on Christianity and not another religion? Which one do I dedicate my time to? I studied for 18 years as a christian and in the end it was no good evidence for belief.

Existentially, that's all up to what you feel motivated as a person to 'check out.' Personally, I'm a Christian because, like you, I've wanted to check out various religious ideas over the years and thus far, Christianity holds the most meaning to me. And that might not sound like 'faith' to some people, and I don't really care if it does or not, but I do know one thing: my following of Christianity isn't primarily a result of my parents having 'inculcated' me in it. If anything, I was the one pressing them to engage it over the years ...

How much study does a person need to understand god? If this is what your god requires then most people in earth cannot know about god.

Clizby, I know you're fairly new to these forums, but for quite a long time now, here on CF, I haven't been the one who claims that the epistemic structures by which faith comes are all put in place by mere human study. No, I'm sure most folks here know that all I've ever stated is that human learning, even at its best, can only carry a person some part of the way toward Christ; but ultimately, it will take some additional orchestration by God Himself to get you over that final hurdle to "the having of faith." NO amount of learning by itself can, or ever has, gotten a person to 'faith' in Christ, but it is intended to definitely help along the way as a part of the human process of having belief and faith.

Again why spend my time on Christianity?

That's up to you to figure out. If you don't have a motivation by which to want to understand Christianity, then there's little or nothing the rest of us can do for you on that personal front. As for me, I just ask myself: Why wouldn't I want to live forever in a painless, happy bliss with a God and Lord who loves me and is able to take me away from me all the crap I have to deal with in this World as well ...

Moreover, I might put the ball back in your court and ask why you spend any time at all in honest interaction with Christians, Clizby? You've got time and intellect for coming onto CF, but you don't have time for anything else? Really? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I'm not going to have an answer to every single question you can pull out of your skull since the Biblical books and letters weren't written to provide answers to every single question that any one single person could possibly come up with. However, I think there's way more than enough indication in the biblical contents to tell us that God has purposely intended for each person to learn and grow along average means of education, and not through some kind of instantaneous, 'magical' processes (despite what some people who claim to be Christian might also claim about their understanding about the Bible).

you "think" OK, other Christians "think" different about what you think. It seems getting the meaning out of the bible is pretty subjective. These are your beliefs without any good evidence that they are true. You don't have an explanation as to why your beliefs should be taken seriously over another.

Existentially, that's all up to what you feel motivated as a person to 'check out.' Personally, I'm a Christian because, like you, I've wanted to check out various religious ideas over the years and thus far, Christianity holds the most meaning to me. And that might not sound like 'faith' to some people, and I don't really care if it does or not, but I do know one thing: my following of Christianity isn't primarily a result of my parents having 'inculcated' me in it. If anything, I was the one pressing them to engage it over the years ...

Christians cannot agree on important doctrines such as if hell exists, was Jesus god, is god one or three, etc. etc. So again why believe what you say over another. Until a christian has an answer how can anyone possibly know what the bible means.

Clizby, I know you're fairly new to these forums, but for quite a long time now, here on CF, I haven't been the one who claims that the epistemic structures by which faith comes are all put in place by mere human study. No, I'm sure most folks here know that all I've ever stated is that human learning, even at its best, can only carry a person some part of the way toward Christ; but ultimately, it will take some additional orchestration by God Himself to get you over that final hurdle to "the having of faith." NO amount of learning by itself can, or ever has, gotten a person to 'faith' in Christ, but it is intended to definitely help along the way as a part of the human process of having belief and faith.

So which is it, faith or learning? Can you have faith without any learning?

That's up to you to figure out. If you don't have a motivation by which to want to understand Christianity, then there's little or nothing the rest of us can do for you on that personal front. As for me, I just ask myself: Why wouldn't I want to live forever in a painless, happy bliss with a God and Lord who loves me and is able to take me away from me all the crap I have to deal with in this World as well ...

Give me evidence this is true then I will look into it further. Wasting 18 years of my life studying it is enough for me. If God wants me to believe then he has the ability to do so.

Moreover, I might put the ball back in your court and ask why you spend any time at all in honest interaction with Christians, Clizby? You've got time and intellect for coming onto CF, but you don't have time for anything else? Really? I find that hard to believe.

I am not here 24/7, I have time for other things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

you "think" OK, other Christians "think" different about what you think. It seems getting the meaning out of the bible is pretty subjective. These are your beliefs without any good evidence that they are true. You don't have an explanation as to why your beliefs should be taken seriously over another.

How do you know I don't have an explanation? Have we even gotten that far in the discussion? I don't think we have. Moreover, didn't I just indicate elsewhere to you that NO ONE could possibly acquire all of the connective data that any of us would need epistemically to have a FINAL SAY on the entirety of God and His Word. But, you make it sound like as if someone actually could...........

Christians cannot agree on important doctrines such as if hell exists, was Jesus god, is god one or three, etc. etc. So again why believe what you say over another. Until a christian has an answer how can anyone possibly know what the bible means.

We simply do the best we can, and each of us will have conceptions that, while similar, won't ever, can't ever--like with anything--be identical. That is not how human perception works. See, there's more to Epistemology than what you're current vocabulary seems to indicate. And I'd recommend you 'learn more Epistemology.'

So which is it, faith or learning? Can you have faith without any learning?

It's not a dichotomy; it's an integral dynamic, and each of us will have and experience various levels of this dynamic. Even without God and the bible, there is NO uniform level of learning and aptitude among all human individuals. It's just not in the make-up of human beings (despite the uniformity they trained you with in the Navy).

Give me evidence this is true then I will look into it further. Wasting 18 years of my life studying it is enough for me. If God wants me to believe then he has the ability to do so.

I can give you 'evidence' but I can't give you the kind of evidence that you'll definitively 'count' as evidence. Of course, like anything else, this goes without saying with many things in life.

I am not here 24/7, I have time for other things.

Ok. So, you have time to study epistemology or hermeneutics, even if not Christian Theology, then? But the real question becomes: Do you really want to? I hope you do.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How do you know I don't have an explanation? Have we even gotten that far in the discussion? I don't think we have. Moreover, didn't I just indicate elsewhere to you that NO ONE could possibly acquire all of the connective data that any of us would need epistemically to have a FINAL SAY on the entirety of God and His Word. But, you make it sound like as if someone actually could...........

I am not asking for 100% agreement on every little detail. But when there is no consensus on salvation and who Jesus is/was that seems like god does not really care if we get those things right.

We simply do the best we can, and each of us will have conceptions that, while similar, won't ever, can't ever--like with anything--be identical. That is not how human perception works. See, there's more to Epistemology than what you're current vocabulary seems to indicate. And I'd recommend you 'learn more Epistemology.'

Do I need to study epistemology more to be able to believe in god? Frankly it was studying epistemology that gave me the tools to understand that there is not any good evidence for belief.

It's not a dichotomy; it's an integral dynamic, and each of us will have and experience various levels of this dynamic. Even without God and the bible, there is NO uniform level of learning and aptitude among all human individuals. It's just not in the make-up of human beings (despite the uniformity they trained you with in the Navy).

It was the Navy that actually taught me how to think critically. Can anyone have faith without doing all this studying you want everyone to do? The evidence says yes. Many people have faith without studying any of this, why can't I? What is your evidence that a god exists?

I can give you 'evidence' but I can't give you the kind of evidence that you'll definitively 'count' as evidence. Of course, like anything else, this goes without saying with many things in life.

That is not for you to decide. You provide the evidence and I get to evaluate it and see if it is sufficient enough for me to believe. What is your evidence god exits?

Ok. So, you have time to study epistemology or hermeneutics, even if not Christian Theology, then? But the real question becomes: Do you really want to? I hope you do.

I have studied these things in the past. I am not going to study them right now. Do I need to study this some more for me to believe god exists?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Can you see how this looks to people outside the Christianity? No one really knows if they have t he correct interpretation becasue Christians differ on all aspects of doctrine, even salvation. Then when you add supernatural claims of revelation it becomes quite a mess and no way to know what the bible says.

Sure. I have no trouble understanding how it all looks like one big convoluted mess, especially to someone completely outside the Christian tradition.

But I also don't think it's entirely too difficult to investigate what those differences are, the why of those differences, etc. Regardless of whether a claim is true or false in and of itself, historical inquiry is still a valid means of understanding those differences.

I don't fully understand ALL the differences between the two major schools of Islam, the Sunni and Shi'a branches; and I certainly don't understand all the different schools of thought, the various streams of jurisprudence, (etc); but I don't think it's impossible for me to learn. And I'm sure that for those who are Muslim, these things do make sense, and their inter-Muslim debates are meaningful to them. Neither do I think the differences in Islamic thought are intrinsically a problem for Islam as a religion. Human beings are human, religious people have differences. For all I know Islam could be the true religion, and if that were a path I wanted to go down, I would probably be willing to wade through those waters of differences in order to better understand, and maybe reach some sort of position--perhaps that position might change over time. Even as my position on many things as a Christian have changed with time as I've challenged myself to ask questions, seek answers, and give myself the freedom to be wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Sure. I have no trouble understanding how it all looks like one big convoluted mess, especially to someone completely outside the Christian tradition.

But I also don't think it's entirely too difficult to investigate what those differences are, the why of those differences, etc. Regardless of whether a claim is true or false in and of itself, historical inquiry is still a valid means of understanding those differences.

I don't fully understand ALL the differences between the two major schools of Islam, the Sunni and Shi'a branches; and I certainly don't understand all the different schools of thought, the various streams of jurisprudence, (etc); but I don't think it's impossible for me to learn. And I'm sure that for those who are Muslim, these things do make sense, and their inter-Muslim debates are meaningful to them. Neither do I think the differences in Islamic thought are intrinsically a problem for Islam as a religion. Human beings are human, religious people have differences. For all I know Islam could be the true religion, and if that were a path I wanted to go down, I would probably be willing to wade through those waters of differences in order to better understand, and maybe reach some sort of position--perhaps that position might change over time. Even as my position on many things as a Christian have changed with time as I've challenged myself to ask questions, seek answers, and give myself the freedom to be wrong.

-CryptoLutheran

When the differences are in direct opposition to each other on the subject of salvation how do you determine who is right so you can make an informed decision about your afterlife? Isn't this of most importance?

Seems though that you may not be a good person to ask since you say here you are not sure Christianity is true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When the differences are in direct opposition to each other on the subject of salvation how do you determine who is right so you can make an informed decision about your afterlife? Isn't this of most importance?

I suppose if I thought my salvation depended on me being right then it would. As far as whatever happens to me after I breathe my last, I simply trust God.

Seems though that you may not be a good person to ask since you say here you are not sure Christianity is true.

Anyone who claims they know for absolute certain that they are right on matters of faith are lying to themselves.

-CryptoLutheran