Why did Jesus Leave?

[Archaeopteryx]

My friend.......as far as I can tell.....in the 21st century west, faith is NOT considered a virtue. It is the "sign of stupidity and gullibility" to the world that you speak of. Fortunately, there are two other benefits of the faith, that the faith are graced with. 1. The faithful are released, by grace from skepticism and cynicism regarding faith,

More accurately, they are released from having to critically think about and potentially reconsider their theological commitments. All they have to do is play the faith card.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You do have faith in those things - which you erroneously call "certainty" - because even though you cannot be surethose things wont happen, you believe they will not. Ask the people who got swallowed into sinkholes how many of them were sure that would never happen. As your own boss, you still believe your dollar (or pound, or even your commodities you exchange in business) will be worth something tomorrow. That is based on faith in market trends - it has worked so far. And, you are erroneously equating that with knowledge.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You equate your own measure of certainty with knowledge, when in fact it is an illusion of knowledge. It isn't semantics; as I said intellectuals often have the hardest time understanding faith, and understanding separating what they think faith is from what it really is.

You seem to be saying that one needs to be perfectly omniscient in order to NOT have faith. Why would that be the case? When the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a particular belief, we have good reason to accept it as true, even if its truth cannot be guaranteed with absolute certainty.

 

[devolved]

You do have faith in those things - which you erroneously call "certainty" - because even though you cannot be surethose things wont happen, you believe they will not. Ask the people who got swallowed into sinkholes how many of them were sure that would never happen. As your own boss, you still believe your dollar (or pound, or even your commodities you exchange in business) will be worth something tomorrow. That is based on faith in market trends - it has worked so far. And, you are erroneously equating that with knowledge.

You don't seem to understand the difference. You equate your own measure of certainty with knowledge, when in fact it is an illusion of knowledge. It isn't semantics; as I said intellectuals often have the hardest time understanding faith, and understanding separating what they think faith is from what it really is.

I can be sure that those things will not happen. I may not have a 100% certainty, but my certainty is predicated on knowledge of how things work.

For example, I'd probably be 99% certain that LCD monitor won't explode in my face, because I understand how it works and there's not much of an explosive potential there.

I can be 99% certain that I won't fall into a sinkhole, first of all because of pure statistics of sinkholes where these are plausible. In my area these are not plausible simply because of the geology of my area. Something that wouldn't happen here.

In terms of the value of the dollar, you are moving a goal posts here. Today, even with Brexit, I'm 99% certain that the dollar will have value, and again, that certainty is predicated on knowledge and understanding, and observable facts. I didn't read it in a 2000 year old book and figured out that I need to use dollars. Such is the structure of economy that we live in. We collectively create it because it's a contractual agreement. We may disagree eventually, but it won't be today or next week. Economies can be less certain and more certain.

Again, the point being is that you are attempting to fudge the semantic of "faith" to level the playing field. My trust that computer won't explode isn't anywhere near the evidential support when it comes to religious faith. It's not on the same floor. It's not even in the same country or continent.

Faith is not about foolishness. You are talking about folly here. Again, it is hard for the intellectual mind to understand faith as separate from an ignorant, foolish thing.

Again, not all "faith" is equal. Fans can have faith in Lebron draining the shot at the end of the game, because they've seen it before. There is less certainty in that situation, but they may hope and trust.

It would be foolish to trust in a guy who they never seen play but only took someone's word that he is good enough to do the same. They may still cheer for the guy, and It may be the case that he can do it, BUT putting any amount of money on it wouldn't be wise.

Hence, I'm merely pointing out the difference. There's nothing virtuous in hoping that the guy would drain the 3 as opposed to having some certainty when someone does it consistently.

When experience is lacking, there is a lack of exerience. Just because you lack experience doesn't mean you are ignorant or gullible. And, certainly if you lack experience but have faith that does not make you ignorant and gullible. Again, you keep equating faith with ignorance and gullibility. This is your thesis; the basis of every argument against faith you make ends with some form of faith being ignorance and gullibility.

Yes, because that's how we define ignorance and gullibility.

Again, I think that you tend to see this as a "whole or nothing" type issue. Ignorance and gullibility isn't a projection on the entirety of any given person is. We generally call people stupid or gullible when we see them making more stupid decisions than the correct ones. We call people ignorant when we see that they don't know or understand much.

I don't think it's a fair assessment. All of us are ignorant, and all of us are contextually stupid or gullible when it comes to certain decisions or understanding.

There are incredibly intelligent people who believed some of the most stupid things, and I doubt I'm an exception. We grow in understanding and we hopefully get to make corrections over the time with more experience and understanding.

Thus, I'm not saying that all of the religious people are stupid and gullible. I'm merely saying that making faith-based decisions isn't the most reliable way we have when it comes of making decisions.

I said that I likely wouldn't be able to make a good case on faith to the intellectual - indeed it is almost impossible. Logic, reason and experience is all they understand; they cannot operate outside of a concrete apparatus with which to measure things. It is actually a handicap that is extolled in this culture as something to be desired.

We are intellectual beings . How else can you think or understand?

We have to teach them to stay away from strangers because people are evil - intelligent people, gullible people, and ignorant people alike. Just because you do not see virtue in something does not mean it is not virtuous. It just doesnt. And, you are still intimating that faith = ignorance + gullibility. Your very basis is doggedly incorrect concerning faith, which is why you arent convinced now and likely will never be convinced, or persuaded.

True, on the point just because I don't see it ... it doesn't mean it's not virtuous. That's why I'm asking as to WHY IS IT A VIRTUE?

I'm a seminary graduate, so I have some contextual understanding of these ideas. What I still don't understand is why making decision based on lack of understanding and evidence would be a better one than having understanding and evidence?

You haven't made a good case or explanation as to why it would be better.

Now, you are assuming faith means stupidity - even the stupidity a child can understand. Common experience is not common to everyone, by the way. That is why there are different cultures.

Yes, see the above reply. I'm not saying that the person is stupid. I'm just saying that the decision would be more stupid than that of having the evidence and understanding.

All stupidity is relative, so is all intelligence. All it is is a contextual judgement of decision-making or understanding.

You didn't say that explicitly before. You were focused on the paradigm of faith becoming, or existing as ignorance and gullibility. We haven't even begun to couple faith and experience to the life of a believer. That kind of testimony, in my opinion, you are nowhere near ready to hear, accept or even entertain. Faith, as it were, still confounds your mind into compartmentalized options limited by you, and determined by you. You need to get out of yourself; if you remember I said faith is about something beyond yourself. You are still focusing on the self - as evident with the intellectual struggle you have between faith and everything else you hold mentally dead.

Well, I've been a believer, and I've dedicated my life to studying the subject. I went to seminary. I went on mission trips.

In retrospect "spiritual experience" is predicate on the belief itself. Of course a person who believes that ghost exist and are responsible for some events will interpret certain happenings as "the work of ghost", but it's a subjective interpretation that lacks reliability when it comes to how we collectively are able to discern how our reality really works.

Experience of the believe means nothing if it's not checked by some external validation. Plenty of people believe plentiful wrong things. That's why we established methods that either validate or discredit certain beliefs. A beliefs that can't be validated are irrelevant.

I don’t really know what you are truly trying to accomplish, but I think I will end here. I don’t want to be trolled, or lead into an endless back and forth about minutia without an understanding of the substance.

I'm asking a specific questions on this thread, and it's my thread . How do you find it "trolling"? You don't find any of my questions legitimate? I'm not attempting to sway you in any direction. Quite the opposite. I'm interested to see if you can show where I'm mistaken.

 

[devolved]

Actually all of those are very valid reasons. His kingdom was also in heaven and he went there to be a king over it. Keep in mind while its been 2000 years for us, that's really not more than two days for God so even if He returns in a thousand years it still was a short time to an immortal.

Why couldn't he stay until someone invented better way to document the events, so people like myself wouldn't have so much trouble believing?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the relative time. We are talking about humanity that God cares about, right? Shouldn't God do better with revealing? Why leaving with only stories to tell, and why all of the hiding and inconclusive and conflicting evidence when it comes to modern experiences?

 

[devolved]

No, I'm saying Jesus is with his people, always guiding them because he's eternally alive. Not in a material sense but a spiritual sense that has physical affects in the material world.

What do you mean by that? How does that work in our reality? So, give me a practical example of how Jesus guided you in making a decision?

It is similar to the effect that we experience when someone says something that's completely true, it kind of sticks with you. Even years into the future, you may be reminded of what they said because the truth of it is timeless. In this sense, Jesus has said the greatest truths of anyone ever and those who listen to him will know God.

Ok, we can say that about any person who said anything true that sticks with us. Does it mean that all of these people are here with us guiding us spiritually?

Again, can you give me a practical example in your life as to what such guidance looks like in reality?

 

[Chriliman]

What do you mean by that? How does that work in our reality? So, give me a practical example of how Jesus guided you in making a decision?

It's hard to pin down, sometimes I'm reminded of scripture that reminds me to not worry about things or not get angry or let thoughts drive me into a negative state of being.

The spiritual war is in the mind, which makes sense because the mind isn't necessarily a material thing. This is why it's important to anchor our thoughts in truth so as to not be tempted to magnify untrue things that may cause damage to our psych or to someone else.

The problem is that some anchor themselves in what they think is solid truth, but come to find out that it's not solid. For me, the truth of Jesus as been solid, I know I can trust Him and His word.

Ok, we can say that about any person who said anything true that sticks with us. Does it mean that all of these people are here with us guiding us spiritually?

If you can consider the mind to be the spiritual battle ground then yes, in some way the things people say can guide you spiritually.

 

[devolved]

It's hard to pin down, sometimes I'm reminded of scripture that reminds me to not worry about things or not get angry or let thoughts drive me into a negative state of being.

So, from what it seems like to me, it's not much different than your subconscious mind doing the work. When you say "I'm reminded", you seem to be assuming that Jesus is reminding you, or "Holy Spirit".

How do you know that you are not merely reminding yourself of the things that you've read or heard?

Again, in context of what I've asked... is this all that Jesus presence and guidance boils down to?

 

[tatteredsoul]

You seem to be saying that one needs to be perfectly omniscient in order to NOT have faith. Why would that be the case? When the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a particular belief, we have good reason to accept it as true, even if its truth cannot be guaranteed with absolute certainty.

Because if you know everything, you don't have to trust in anything else beyond your own knowledge. Get it?

Belief becomes knowledge. Everything becomes knowledge. You don't need to trust the measure of anything because you know the measure. How is this not obvious?

Omniscient means you know absolutely everything, absolutely. Why would you need faith when you know everything. (I can see why this would be confusing if you don't understand what faith is in the first place.)

If you don't know everything, then some measure of your combined intellectual movement is based on faith. Faith and knowledge are two sides of the same coin.

 

[devolved]

Because if you know everything, you don't have to trust in anything else beyond your own knowledge. Get it?

I don't think that was the intent of his question. You seemed to imply that we need to have faith that computer doesn't implode. His question was in regards to that assertion. You seemed to imply that either we need to know with a 100% certainty, otherwise it's all faith.

He and I merely point out that it's not the case. Again, you seem to fudge the semantics to level the playing field which isn't leveled. There's a vast difference between trusting that LCD will not explode and believing in a story that someone resurrected and is coming back on a white horse to do the same to everyone who believes.

If you don't know everything, then some measure of your combined intellectual movement is based on faith. Faith and knowledge are two sides of the same coin.

The key word is some. Sure, some measure does, but again... it's like saying to a bodybuilder... you still have 7% fat, therefore you are fat. Do you understand the point?

It's not merely about personally believing something. I'm fine with personal beliefs of other, no matter how outlandish these may be. But we are talking about communicating beliefs in a scope of valid reasons as to why anyone else should believe these.

An intelligent person will likewise evaluate their own beliefs to make sure that they are not driven by false assumptions.

 

[Chriliman]

So, from what it seems like to me, it's not much different than your subconscious mind doing the work. When you say "I'm reminded", you seem to be assuming that Jesus is reminding you, or "Holy Spirit".

Assuming Jesus actually said what he said for a reason, then yes it is Jesus or the Spirit of Jesus or Holy Spirit, that is guiding me. If this is not the case then I'd have to conclude that Jesus was lying, but I can't deny the positive affects that believing and listening to Jesus' words and those who teach about him, has had on my life.

How do you know that you are not merely reminding yourself of the things that you've read or heard?

If Jesus had never said the things that he said, then I wouldn't be able to be reminded of his words at all. IOW, whether its me reminding myself or not, wouldn't even matter if his words hadn't been recorded.

Again, in context of what I've asked... is this all that Jesus presence and guidance boils down to?

Pretty much, all we really have to do is listen to what Jesus says and put into practice in our lives and we're good. This is why he said:

Matthew 11:28-30
"Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

The problem is that we often think we have it all figured out and don't need anyone to teach us anything because our lives are "good", until real life actually happens. We then turn to someone, anyone. Jesus' tells us to turn to him in those dark times and if we do, we learn to turn to him all the time.

 

[tatteredsoul]

I don't think that was the intent of his question. You seemed to imply that we need to have faith that computer doesn't implode. His question was in regards to that assertion. You seemed to imply that either we need to know with a 100% certainty, otherwise it's all faith.

He and I merely point out that it's not the case. Again, you seem to fudge the semantics to level the playing field which isn't leveled. There's a vast difference between trusting that LCD will not explode and believing in a story that someone resurrected and is coming back on a white horse to do the same to everyone who believes.



The key word is some. Sure, some measure does, but again... it's like saying to a bodybuilder... you still have 7% fat, therefore you are fat. Do you understand the point?

Do you understand that if you don't have omniscience, you don't know everything - and therefore you have put trust (read: faith) in something beyond your own self (trends, statistics, rarity, etc.) to substantiate the likelihood, and therefore confidence in an event happening?

You can dress it up however you want to: it is faith. As I said, most people do not know what faith is, which is likely why Christ asks if He will find it when He returns - despite billions of people claiming to be Christian. Faith is one of the most misunderstood things; most people don't even realize it is passive and active. The ignorance comes from choosing to ignore that measure of confidence are based on faith in something - especially when it is emphasized into something intellectual.

 

[devolved]

Do you understand that if you don't have omniscience, you don't know everything - and therefore you have put trust (read: faith) in something beyond your own self (trends, statistics, rarity, etc.) to substantiate the likelihood, and therefore confidence in an event happening?

You can dress it up however you want to: it is faith.

Do you need faith to understand that 2 + 2 = 4?

Do you need faith to predict the answer of 2 + 2 + 2 = ?

 

[Chriliman]

Do you need faith to understand that 2 + 2 = 4?

Do you need faith to predict the answer of 2 + 2 + 2 = ?

Before I knew the answers to these equations, I did need faith in the person who was teaching me the right answers.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Do you need faith to understand that 2 + 2 = 4?

Do you need faith to predict the answer of 2 + 2 + 2 = ?

Oh, you want to get into math?

Firstly we are in Euclidean space, right? Base 10? Check? Check. Ok, 2+2 = 4.

But wait, we are assuming 2 is something, right? Are we going with the axiom that 2 is a concrete, well-rounded integer (is it an integer?) Are we going to assume that the number "4" is also well-rounded? Is 4 unique?

For math, axioms, postulates and consequential corollaries are used to clean up the mess of uncertainties and things we assume to be true. Usually, you need the right dimension, field, ring, space, and a slew of acceptable axioms and postulates to back you up. 2+2 is not as easy as you may think it is, but because it is mostly assumed to be in a certain space, with certain properties we assume that its addition yields a certain image - in this case it is 4. So, yes you need faith in your establish coordinate system, field, ring, and numbers in order to say 2+2=4. Go to Vega, and see if that is the same.

In other words, you have faith in the mathematics you have learned - that has worked for you so far (trends) - to the point where you trust that 2+2=4. So you can extrapolate your faith in that system to say that 2+2+2 = 6, for example. On earth, at least.

Call it whatever you want.

 

[tatteredsoul]

Before I knew the answers to these equations, I did need faith in the person who was teaching me the right answers.

That too...

 

[devolved]

But wait, we are assuming 2 is something, right? Are we going with the axiom that 2 is a concrete, well-rounded integer (is it an integer?) Are we going to assume that the number "4" is also well-rounded? Is 4 unique?

You are trying too hard.

For math, axioms, postulates and consequential corollaries are used to clean up the mess of uncertainties and things we assume to be true. Usually, you need the right dimension, field, ring, space, and a slew of acceptable axioms and postulates to back you up. 2+2 is not as easy as you may think it is, but because it is mostly assumed to be in a certain space, with certain properties we assume that its addition yields a certain image - in this case it is 4. So, yes you need faith in your establish coordinate system, field, ring, and numbers in order to say 2+2=4. Go to Vega, and see if that is the same.

It's not easy because you are trying to project it on reality, where such projection is unwarranted. I was merely pointing out that conceptual equations that exist purely on basis of axiomatic conceptual relationships don't need to be supported by anything external.

It's as simple as holding up four fingers and counting these one by one. Again, you are trying way too hard.

In other words, you have faith in the mathematics you have learned - that has worked for you so far (trends) - to the point where you trust that 2+2=4. So you can extrapolate your faith in that system to say that 2+2+2 = 6, for example. On earth, at least.

Once you can validate something you no longer need faith. That's why we have science as methodology. You are attempting to poison the well and say "hey everything is the same", but it's not.

I've already explained to you. An apple that has 0.1 % poison isn't the same as one that has 80%. You are attempting to say that these are the same because there's some poison in both.

 

[devolved]

Before I knew the answers to these equations, I did need faith in the person who was teaching me the right answers.

Sure... before you did.

 

[Chriliman]

Sure... before you did.

So until you know all the answers to life, you'd need to have faith in the one who does know all the answers to life.

 

[tatteredsoul]

You are trying too hard.



It's not easy because you are trying to project it on reality, where such projection is unwarranted. I was merely pointing out that conceptual equations that exist purely on basis of axiomatic conceptual relationships don't need to be supported by anything external.

It's as simple as holding up four fingers and counting these one by one. Again, you are trying way too hard.



Once you can validate something you no longer need faith. That's why we have science as methodology. You are attempting to poison the well and say "hey everything is the same", but it's not.

I've already explained to you. An apple that has 0.1 % poison isn't the same as one that has 80%. You are attempting to say that these are the same because there's some poison in both.

Uh huh..

Right.

 

[tatteredsoul]

So until you know all the answers to life, you'd need to have faith in the one who does know all the answers to life.

No, that's called confidence...